Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 19, 2014, 03:53:57 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Suspect in failed Times Square bombing pulled off UAE202 at JFK
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Suspect in failed Times Square bombing pulled off UAE202 at JFK  (Read 15210 times)
cptbrw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2010, 06:01:24 PM »

The reason for that is the 119.1 frequency was stopped as the tower frequency that night. They switched to 123.9.

As a pilot is seems a little suspicious to me that the controller issues the command "..runway 22 right taxi position actually I have a message for you to go back to the gate immediately...", all stated in one breath without hesitation.  Normally in air traffic control and ground control communication protocol there would never be a last second interruption in the issuance of a command such as this because, the information needed to "taxi into position and hold" which is what the tower controller was about to say, would have already been "made up" in her mind and she spoke as though someone, last minute, shoved a piece of paper in front of her or that she received some emergency print out over-riding her command.  It just does not happen that way.  And if someone had "flagged her down" there would have been some type of hesitation in her voice, or at the very least, she would have said, "Emerates standby".  I'm presuming the "authorities" intentionally allowed this part of the case to unfold with this drama so as to create the impression that he narrowly escaped and through that drama, change the law regarding notification to airlines, and give some boost to the pressure from the Administration to switch notifications from the Secure Flight program to the TSA.

Controllers are excellent multi-taskers and I would bet that she was either handed a note which she was reading as she began to issue the clearance or someone was whispering it in her ear.  To think that this is anything more than that is, IMHO, phobic. I can't envision any grand Administration plan that would take such a risk.  Besides, we all know that any kind of government plan/plot requires any number of meetings and proposals before it comes to fruition and that would have taken weeks or months!   grin
Logged
glencar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2010, 08:32:38 PM »

Plus controllers wouldn't participate in that kind of crap. I'm sure while she was reading the usual spiel, she was told that UAE202 had to go back to the gate.
Logged
SkyPie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2010, 03:23:45 AM »

Or she's just human like the rest of us and didn't immediately associate "aircraft on this message I received" with "aircraft I'm now handling" until she had said it aloud. I've certainly done that before and I'd imagine when your main focus is on safely working several aircraft at once, information from outside your normal, everyday work flow is probably not going to get the same mental treatment as information coming from the inbound aircraft that just contacted you or the flight strip you were just handed. I'd also imagine it being even easier to miss the association at first if the message and, say, the flight strip referred to the aircraft in different ways (e.g. full airline name vs. IATA vs. ICAO designator).

Not everything needs to be a conspiracy. grin
Logged
w0x0f
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 322



« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2010, 11:41:28 AM »

The reason for that is the 119.1 frequency was stopped as the tower frequency that night. They switched to 123.9.

As a pilot is seems a little suspicious to me that the controller issues the command "..runway 22 right taxi position actually I have a message for you to go back to the gate immediately...", all stated in one breath without hesitation.  Normally in air traffic control and ground control communication protocol there would never be a last second interruption in the issuance of a command such as this because, the information needed to "taxi into position and hold" which is what the tower controller was about to say, would have already been "made up" in her mind and she spoke as though someone, last minute, shoved a piece of paper in front of her or that she received some emergency print out over-riding her command.  It just does not happen that way.  And if someone had "flagged her down" there would have been some type of hesitation in her voice, or at the very least, she would have said, "Emerates standby".  I'm presuming the "authorities" intentionally allowed this part of the case to unfold with this drama so as to create the impression that he narrowly escaped and through that drama, change the law regarding notification to airlines, and give some boost to the pressure from the Administration to switch notifications from the Secure Flight program to the TSA.

The authorities intentionally allowed this part of the case to unfold to give Jack Bauer time to deactivate the dirty bomb and make it over to JFK.

 rolleyes

w0x0f
Logged
glencar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2010, 01:11:26 PM »

I'm gonna miss that show!
Logged
SikPilot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2010, 01:26:24 PM »



Glad they caught him but...

...  Don't you think given the circumstances, known terrorist bomber on board, they should have taxied the plane to a secure less crowded area rather than back to a gate? 
Logged
Cap747
Guest
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2010, 02:11:08 PM »

He left his "package" at Times Square I'll guess nobody thought of more "problems"... We have to ask someone about it.... wink
Logged
SirIsaac726
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2010, 07:11:17 PM »



Glad they caught him but...

...  Don't you think given the circumstances, known terrorist bomber on board, they should have taxied the plane to a secure less crowded area rather than back to a gate? 

Not really.  He had to have passed security.  If he made a bomb threat to the plane, then I'm sure they would have.  But taxiing back to the gate is the easiest and less disruptive thing to do if there is no threat to the plane itself.
Logged
bulgin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2010, 09:55:31 AM »

they knew his whereabouts from the moment they had his cell phone number, which was well before the made it to JFK.  So when they say they "lost" him, do you really think they did, as was reported in the news outlets?  One poster mentioned they had an AWACS plan over head.  You think the AWACS "lost" him?

It's not conspiracy, it's just the way the government works.  You think they are gonna tell you everything?
Logged
SirIsaac726
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2010, 03:13:45 PM »

they knew his whereabouts from the moment they had his cell phone number, which was well before the made it to JFK.  So when they say they "lost" him, do you really think they did, as was reported in the news outlets?  One poster mentioned they had an AWACS plan over head.  You think the AWACS "lost" him?

It's not conspiracy, it's just the way the government works.  You think they are gonna tell you everything?

You realize you are talking about the news media, right?  The news will find the easiest and most general way to report something even if it isn't completely accurate.

Regarding the AWACS, I highly doubt that.  They don't readily have planes like that flying over the New York area like 24 and Jack Bauer make people believe.

And they aren't going to tell us everything as not everyone needs to know.  However, point to another instance where something like this has happened where it has been determined the government let things play out for the drama.  The chain of communication from the government to the ATC would take too long and would need some nice organization well in advance for this to work.

I think you are just paranoid right now. Remember, this isn't 24 and this isn't TV where they make dramatize everything. tongue
Logged
erau2006
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2010, 02:47:33 PM »

Or she's just human like the rest of us and didn't immediately associate "aircraft on this message I received" with "aircraft I'm now handling" until she had said it aloud. I've certainly done that before and I'd imagine when your main focus is on safely working several aircraft at once, information from outside your normal, everyday work flow is probably not going to get the same mental treatment as information coming from the inbound aircraft that just contacted you or the flight strip you were just handed.

Or maybe someone just told her as she was issuing the clearance to the aircraft. So rather than saying standby, she just said everything in one sentence without hesitation.

And I doubt a print out was given to her to interupt her. Towers aren't as high tech as we would like them to be.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #26 on: May 12, 2010, 09:33:40 PM »


Regarding the AWACS, I highly doubt that. 
Well then you would be wrong.
Logged
avemg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #27 on: May 12, 2010, 09:58:46 PM »


Regarding the AWACS, I highly doubt that.  
Well then you would be wrong.


Hate that my first post here has to be somewhat off-topic, but wouldn't the Posse Comitatus Act prohibit the military from operating AWACS over NYC? Assuming of course that any AWACS in the air would be military which, for all I know, isn't a safe assumption.
Logged
iskyfly
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #28 on: May 12, 2010, 10:03:29 PM »



Hate that my first post here has to be somewhat off-topic, but wouldn't the Posse Comitatus Act prohibit the military from operating AWACS over NYC? Assuming of course that any AWACS in the air would be military which, for all I know, isn't a safe assumption.
NATO operates the flights.
Logged
avemg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2010, 10:05:33 PM »



Hate that my first post here has to be somewhat off-topic, but wouldn't the Posse Comitatus Act prohibit the military from operating AWACS over NYC? Assuming of course that any AWACS in the air would be military which, for all I know, isn't a safe assumption.
NATO operates the flights.


And NATO is a military organization, is it not? Unless you mean that a foreign member of NATO actually operates the flights which I suppose would technically skirt Posse Comitatus.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 10:07:35 PM by avemg » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!