Note: The following information applies specifically to Boston Center ARTCC. The 'special purpose' squawk information applies nationwide. For more information, see here.
Often times when monitoring aircraft, especially when listening to them take off, you'll hear the controller say something like "N46F, squawk 6252". What does this mean, and what information, if any, can we gain from this?
First, a little background. Aircraft transponders exist to help identify the aircraft on the air traffic controller's radar screen, and on collision avoidance systems. To aid in this, aircraft equipped with a transponder will be assigned a four digit code to "squawk" from their transponder. This is old, technology, dating back to the 1950's, so instead of being a decimal system, it's an octal one. This means there are no 8's or 9's, or, more simply, each transponder has four dials that can each be positioned from 1 to 7. This leaves 4096 possible codes.
Transponder codes are assigned by air traffic control, but the possibility exists for more than 4096 flights nationwide at the same time, so the codes must be carefully managed. In addition, some codes have designated purposes, and aren't available for routine flight operations.
Let's start with the codes that have set meanings:
0000: Not used
0100-0400: Allocated to Service Area Operations for assignment for use by Terminal/CERAP/Industry/Unique Purpose/Experimental Activities
1000: Used exclusively by ADS-B aircraft to inhibit Mode 3A transmit
1200: For use by VFR aircraft not in radio contact with ATC
1201: VFR aircraft not in radio contact with ATC
1202-1272: Used by VFR aircraft that will be entering a US Air Defense Identification Zone
1255: Firefighting aircraft
1273-1275: Used by calibration monitoring equipment
1276: Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) penetration when unable to establish communication with ATC or aeronautical facility
1277: Search and Rescue aircraft
4400: SR-71, F-12, U-2, B-57, pressure suit flights and aircraft operations above FL 600
4401-4433: Federal Law Enforcement
4434-4437: Weather reconnaissance
4440-4441: Operations above FL600 for Lockheed/NASA from Moffett Field
4442-4446: Operations above FL600 for Lockheed from Air Force Plant 42
4447-4452: Operations above FL600 for SR-71/U-2 operations from Edwards AFB
4453: High balloon operations – National Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine TX
4454-4465: Air Force operations above FL600
5000-5060, 5400-5477, 6100-6177, 6400-6477, and 7501-7577: Reserved for military operations. Can only be assigned by NORAD. (Note: Most military flights are not assigned these codes)
7500: Hijacked aircraft
7600: Communications failure
7601-7607: FAA Special Use
7700: General emergency
7701-7707: FAA Special Use
7777: DOD interceptor aircraft on active air defense missions and operating without ATC clearance
So, more or less the rest of these codes are available for assignment. When assigning discrete codes, obviously they can't be shared by aircraft in the same area. Sometimes re-assignments are made in the air, but this is also accomplished via careful management of which codes are assigned by which area, and for what purpose. Certain code blocks are designated to be used for aircraft that will complete their flight plan without leaving the ARTCC area, and other blocks are for flights departing the area. In other words, when you are hearing the squawk get assigned, you can tell if the flight is local or not. For flights taking off inside Boston Center, the assignments are as follows:
For flights staying inside the ZBW ARTCC:
Primary: 4600-4677
Secondary: 5300-5377, 5500-5577, 4700-4777, and 0001-0077
For flights departing the ZBW ARTCC:
Primary: 3400-3477 and 3500-3577
Secondary: 7300-7377, 2000-2077, 1400-1477, and 1300-1377
Tertiary: 7000-7077 and 2400-2477
Remember that this only works for flights originating within the Boston Center ARTCC, which covers New England and part of New York state.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
State Police have identified victim in fatal Route 3 crash
At about 7:15 PM on August 6th, a single car with five occupants was involved in an accident on the northbound side of Rt. 3 in Braintree. The driver of the vehicle, 26 year old Framingham resident Timella Warren, was transported to Boston Medical Center, but died from her injuries. The four passengers also sustained serious injuries, and two were taken to South Shore Hospital and two to Boston Medical Center. The passengers are only identified as a 20 year old Malden woman, and three men, ages 17, 20, and 26, all from Boston.
According to state police, Ms. Warren was operating her vehicle erratically in the passing lane when it veered into the center lane of the highway. When the driver attempted to steer back into the left lane, she overcorrected, causing the 1996 Honda Accord to strike the concrete divider and roll over twice before winding up in the center lane. At least three people were thrown from the vehicle.
According to state police, Ms. Warren was operating her vehicle erratically in the passing lane when it veered into the center lane of the highway. When the driver attempted to steer back into the left lane, she overcorrected, causing the 1996 Honda Accord to strike the concrete divider and roll over twice before winding up in the center lane. At least three people were thrown from the vehicle.
Braintree - At least 3 ejected - 5 passengers total - 2 walking wounded at the scene twitter.com/kwilesjrphoto/…
— Kevin Wiles, Jr (@kwilesjrphoto) August 6, 2012
Fighters intercept planes over Connecticut
This afternoon and evening, President Obama was in Connecticut for campaign events in Westport and Stamford. As is typical, a "no fly zone" was established around the areas he would be in for the duration of the visit. It read, in part, like this:
Sometime just before 8:00 PM local time, a small aircraft (a Kitfox Sport) with tail number N725CE entered the area designated as National Defense Airspace. Prior to entering this area, the aircraft will be hailed on an emergency frequency, and warned to turn away. Several warnings are typically given, and they typically include distance from the restricted area, and the fastest way away from it. N725CE likely did not hear the warnings, and probably wasn't aware of the restricted airspace, and must have proceeded past the boundary. At some point, a decision would have been made to scramble F-15's to intercept the small plane. You can listen to them take off from Barnes here:
The intercept aircraft, call signs SLAM31 and SLAM32, are directed by NORAD to their target, which is referred to as the 'TOI' - Target of Interest. When the fighters launched, N725CE was approximately 80 miles away from them. The F-15's covered this distance in six minutes, going supersonic in order to reach the target before it came within striking distance of the President. Once they identified the plane, the fighters used a series of visual signals to order the pilot to establish communications and/or follow them to a designated landing site. N725CE was escorted by the jets to Long Island MacArthur Airport, where he was ordered to park on a remote taxiway. The pilot was taken into custody by airport law enforcement and held until United States Secret Service officers arrived on scene to take him into custody and interview him. You can listen to the radio communications between the pilot, tower, and airport law enforcement here:
Part 1
Part 2
A second plane was then also intercepted by the same flight of F-15's.
Paul Shea, Aaron Perry, and Brian D'Amico contributed to this story. All audio is courtesy of LiveATC.
If you enjoy coverage such as this, please chip in to help me buy new equipment:
NEW YORK, NEW YORK TO STAMFORD/WESTPORT, CONNECTICUT, AUGUST 6, 2012 LOCAL. PURSUANT TO 49 USC 40103(B), THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) CLASSIFIES THE AIRSPACE DEFINED IN THIS NOTAM AS NATIONAL DEFENSE AIRSPACE'. PILOTS WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES MAY BE INTERCEPTED, DETAINED AND INTERVIEWED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT/SECURITY PERSONNEL.And included other bits, like this:
C) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY USE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST THE AIRBORNE AIRCRAFT, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE AIRCRAFT POSES AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT.At times the President has a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) overhead, but other times, fighters are standing by on the ground nearby. When the President visits New England, F-15's from the 104th Fighter Wing in Massachusetts are ready to scramble from Westfield/Barnes airport and intercept potential security threats. These are the same jets that are kept at the ready to intercept any potential threats in the area.
Sometime just before 8:00 PM local time, a small aircraft (a Kitfox Sport) with tail number N725CE entered the area designated as National Defense Airspace. Prior to entering this area, the aircraft will be hailed on an emergency frequency, and warned to turn away. Several warnings are typically given, and they typically include distance from the restricted area, and the fastest way away from it. N725CE likely did not hear the warnings, and probably wasn't aware of the restricted airspace, and must have proceeded past the boundary. At some point, a decision would have been made to scramble F-15's to intercept the small plane. You can listen to them take off from Barnes here:
The intercept aircraft, call signs SLAM31 and SLAM32, are directed by NORAD to their target, which is referred to as the 'TOI' - Target of Interest. When the fighters launched, N725CE was approximately 80 miles away from them. The F-15's covered this distance in six minutes, going supersonic in order to reach the target before it came within striking distance of the President. Once they identified the plane, the fighters used a series of visual signals to order the pilot to establish communications and/or follow them to a designated landing site. N725CE was escorted by the jets to Long Island MacArthur Airport, where he was ordered to park on a remote taxiway. The pilot was taken into custody by airport law enforcement and held until United States Secret Service officers arrived on scene to take him into custody and interview him. You can listen to the radio communications between the pilot, tower, and airport law enforcement here:
Part 1
Part 2
A second plane was then also intercepted by the same flight of F-15's.
Paul Shea, Aaron Perry, and Brian D'Amico contributed to this story. All audio is courtesy of LiveATC.
If you enjoy coverage such as this, please chip in to help me buy new equipment:
Friday, August 3, 2012
2012 Great New England Air Show Scanner Guide
Hope everyone's ready for the Great New England Air Show this weekend at Westover. Here's a guide to some scanner frequencies to get you started.
TIP: If this is your first time bringing a scanner to an air show, bring headphones! Otherwise, it may be too loud for you to hear the radio.
Westover Airport frequencies:
CTAF: 134.85
UNICOM: 122.95
ATIS: 114.0 138.1
WESTOVER GROUND: 118.35 275.8 [0700-2300]
WESTOVER TOWER: 134.85 348.75 [0700-2300]
BRADLEY APPROACH: 125.35
BRADLEY DEPARTURE: 125.35
COMD POST 439 AW - (OPR 24 HOURS): 252.1
EMERG: 121.5 243.0
PMSV METRO (FULL SVC 1100-0400++): 274.75
PTD: 372.2
In the past, the air boss has been on 118.9. I don't have any confirmation that is the frequency in use this year.
Performer frequencies:
US Army Special Operations Command parachute team, the Black Daggers:
Try 123.15, 123.45, 136.0, and 136.5.
Iron Eagles Aerobatic Team:
122.925, 123.150, 123.475
Geico Skytypers:
Formation: 122.750, 122.775, 123.425
Solo: 122.775, 123.150, 123.425, 123.450
Mike Goulian:
123.15
Navy F/A-18 Demo team:
237.8, 349.9
B-2 Flyover:
233.025, 257.100, 260.250, 265.825, 267.000, 320.525, 354.350, 375.925, 376.025, 388.850
MA ANG F-15's:
251.9, 259.6, 259.9, 303.0, 309.0
More frequencies will be posted as I can confirm them!
TIP: If this is your first time bringing a scanner to an air show, bring headphones! Otherwise, it may be too loud for you to hear the radio.
Westover Airport frequencies:
CTAF: 134.85
UNICOM: 122.95
ATIS: 114.0 138.1
WESTOVER GROUND: 118.35 275.8 [0700-2300]
WESTOVER TOWER: 134.85 348.75 [0700-2300]
BRADLEY APPROACH: 125.35
BRADLEY DEPARTURE: 125.35
COMD POST 439 AW - (OPR 24 HOURS): 252.1
EMERG: 121.5 243.0
PMSV METRO (FULL SVC 1100-0400++): 274.75
PTD: 372.2
In the past, the air boss has been on 118.9. I don't have any confirmation that is the frequency in use this year.
Performer frequencies:
US Army Special Operations Command parachute team, the Black Daggers:
Try 123.15, 123.45, 136.0, and 136.5.
Iron Eagles Aerobatic Team:
122.925, 123.150, 123.475
Geico Skytypers:
Formation: 122.750, 122.775, 123.425
Solo: 122.775, 123.150, 123.425, 123.450
Mike Goulian:
123.15
Navy F/A-18 Demo team:
237.8, 349.9
B-2 Flyover:
233.025, 257.100, 260.250, 265.825, 267.000, 320.525, 354.350, 375.925, 376.025, 388.850
MA ANG F-15's:
251.9, 259.6, 259.9, 303.0, 309.0
More frequencies will be posted as I can confirm them!
Fighters scramble after camera found on board flight
This post is written primarily in rebuttal to this blog post here, in which the author raises questions about the appropriateness of fighters scrambling to intercept commercial jets.
First, a little background. Every time there is a threat against a plane, I'm sure a fighter intercept is considered. However, in the vast majority of incidents, disturbances, etc, the plane proceeds to the nearest airport and lands, and is met by law enforcement on the ground. A fighter intercept is the exception, not the rule.
The fighters perform a number of functions during the intercept. Primarily, they can monitor what the plane is actually doing, by following along behind it and reporting back to air traffic control and NORAD. During most scrambles, this is the extent of what happens. During the September 11th attacks, the terrorists disabled the plane's transponders, causing them to effectively become invisible to Air Traffic Control. A plane can also have a transponder and communications failure that isn't related to terrorism, and having a trailing interceptor that can monitor their maneuvers is obviously key.
Many potential security threats are caused by medical issues as well as mechanical ones. If a plane deviates from it's assigned flight plan and ATC can't reach the pilots, fighters will be scrambled. These fighters will get close enough to visually signal the pilot to follow them (by rocking the wings), and will assess the situation by looking for things like whether or not the pilot appears alert and at the wheel, or whether or not the windows are iced over (a sign of rapid decompression). This has been happening for a long time before September 11th 2001.
Lastly, there are the situations aboard the plane that cause security concerns. Back in May, there was a passenger who seemed to indicate they had a device implanted inside them, and more recently, we had the abandoned camera. Documents recovered from Al Qaeda demonstrate that they at the very least have an interest in hiding explosives inside a camera body to get them past security. Additionally, just because there is no one on board claiming the camera doesn't mean that it wasn't put there by someone who is in fact aboard. And if terrorists have figured out a way to gain access to the cockpit and replicate the September 11th attacks, knowing that they will be intercepted and shot down before they can accomplish their goal could serve as a deterrence against attempting an attack in that manner.
So, in this situation, fighters get scrambled, and their primary mission is to shadow the aircraft, either openly or in secret. They'll monitor the actions of the plane and see if the instructions from Air Traffic Control are being followed promptly and correctly, which if not, could be an indication that the pilot is under duress. Remember, if the plane is under terrorist control, there may be no one on board who can communicate what is going on to the outside. The fighter serves as the closet thing we can get to a set of eyes. And of course, in the event that it appears that the plane itself is going to be used as a weapon, a decision could be made to shoot it down as a last resort. Obviously instructions from this would come from very high in the chain of command, probably as high as they could possibly get in the time frame necessary.
The author seems to imply that these commercial flights are one twitchy fighter pilot away from being shot down, which is just not true. Or, maybe he's just complaining that we're too comfortable with fighter scrambles. I would heartily disagree with this, and say that the only reason it makes the news is BECAUSE of the fighter intercept. Similar scenarios happen all the time without a scramble, and just aren't considered newsworthy. Also, anytime anyone spots a military aircraft doing anything, I get a flood of "Oh my God what's going on are we under attack" inquiries, suggesting that the general public has not, in fact, just grown accustomed or complacent with such things.
He poses that there is a moral question about shooting down a passenger jet, but I believe most people would have preferred that the flights that crashed on September 11th had been shot down over an unpopulated area, instead of being allowed to crash into their targets. I don't think there is much of a moral debate there.
He then moves on to the legal question, apparently unaware that there is an entire arm of government that sits around and weighs the legal ramifications of every military action. Posse Comitatus is mentioned, which states that the federal Army and Air Force can not be used in a law enforcement action without authority granted by the Constitution or by an act of Congress. Apparently the author believes that terrorists attempting to blow up an airliner or crash it into a building are a matter for law enforcement? He then goes on to ask "is the use of military air power to kill American citizens in U.S. airspace even authorized by any Act of Congress?". I guess he didn't catch all of the news coverage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, or bother to Google the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists act, passed in 2001.
Lastly, he has a problem with the fact that he doesn't know who authorizes the fighter pilots to shoot down a plane, a problem that can also be fixed with the casual use of Google. On September 11th, 2001, only the president had the authority to give such an order (which he did). Since then, the policy has been changed. The president is still the ultimate authority, and he if can be reached, the decision rests with him. The lowest possible persons who can order the shoot-down appears to be two Generals, one at Tyndall AFB, and one at Elmendorf AFB. The order would only be given in the most rare and extreme circumstances, and could only be given by the generals if no one higher could be reached to make the decision.
I can understand the author's desire to know exactly what circumstances would trigger a shoot down order, but if I was a terrorist attempting to complete a mission, I'd also want that list of circumstances. So I wouldn't expect to see the government releasing such information any time soon.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that there are a ton of legitimate debates regarding airline security, and our general reaction to terrorist threats and attacks, that we should be having. I think there's probably even a reasonable discussion to be had regarding whether or not the fighter scrambles are necessary. Two of the author's conclusions, though, are patently wrong. He implies that the government has not considered the morality or legality of a shoot-down, or the consequences, which is just not true. He also states that the only function the interceptor can perform is to shoot down the plane, which demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding these matters. To answer the question he poses in the title, though: Yes. The government is absolutely, 100% prepared to shoot down a commercial airliner and kill everyone on board, under the most extreme circumstances, and when doing so is the last, best option for saving many more lives on the ground.
First, a little background. Every time there is a threat against a plane, I'm sure a fighter intercept is considered. However, in the vast majority of incidents, disturbances, etc, the plane proceeds to the nearest airport and lands, and is met by law enforcement on the ground. A fighter intercept is the exception, not the rule.
The fighters perform a number of functions during the intercept. Primarily, they can monitor what the plane is actually doing, by following along behind it and reporting back to air traffic control and NORAD. During most scrambles, this is the extent of what happens. During the September 11th attacks, the terrorists disabled the plane's transponders, causing them to effectively become invisible to Air Traffic Control. A plane can also have a transponder and communications failure that isn't related to terrorism, and having a trailing interceptor that can monitor their maneuvers is obviously key.
Many potential security threats are caused by medical issues as well as mechanical ones. If a plane deviates from it's assigned flight plan and ATC can't reach the pilots, fighters will be scrambled. These fighters will get close enough to visually signal the pilot to follow them (by rocking the wings), and will assess the situation by looking for things like whether or not the pilot appears alert and at the wheel, or whether or not the windows are iced over (a sign of rapid decompression). This has been happening for a long time before September 11th 2001.
Lastly, there are the situations aboard the plane that cause security concerns. Back in May, there was a passenger who seemed to indicate they had a device implanted inside them, and more recently, we had the abandoned camera. Documents recovered from Al Qaeda demonstrate that they at the very least have an interest in hiding explosives inside a camera body to get them past security. Additionally, just because there is no one on board claiming the camera doesn't mean that it wasn't put there by someone who is in fact aboard. And if terrorists have figured out a way to gain access to the cockpit and replicate the September 11th attacks, knowing that they will be intercepted and shot down before they can accomplish their goal could serve as a deterrence against attempting an attack in that manner.
So, in this situation, fighters get scrambled, and their primary mission is to shadow the aircraft, either openly or in secret. They'll monitor the actions of the plane and see if the instructions from Air Traffic Control are being followed promptly and correctly, which if not, could be an indication that the pilot is under duress. Remember, if the plane is under terrorist control, there may be no one on board who can communicate what is going on to the outside. The fighter serves as the closet thing we can get to a set of eyes. And of course, in the event that it appears that the plane itself is going to be used as a weapon, a decision could be made to shoot it down as a last resort. Obviously instructions from this would come from very high in the chain of command, probably as high as they could possibly get in the time frame necessary.
The author seems to imply that these commercial flights are one twitchy fighter pilot away from being shot down, which is just not true. Or, maybe he's just complaining that we're too comfortable with fighter scrambles. I would heartily disagree with this, and say that the only reason it makes the news is BECAUSE of the fighter intercept. Similar scenarios happen all the time without a scramble, and just aren't considered newsworthy. Also, anytime anyone spots a military aircraft doing anything, I get a flood of "Oh my God what's going on are we under attack" inquiries, suggesting that the general public has not, in fact, just grown accustomed or complacent with such things.
He poses that there is a moral question about shooting down a passenger jet, but I believe most people would have preferred that the flights that crashed on September 11th had been shot down over an unpopulated area, instead of being allowed to crash into their targets. I don't think there is much of a moral debate there.
He then moves on to the legal question, apparently unaware that there is an entire arm of government that sits around and weighs the legal ramifications of every military action. Posse Comitatus is mentioned, which states that the federal Army and Air Force can not be used in a law enforcement action without authority granted by the Constitution or by an act of Congress. Apparently the author believes that terrorists attempting to blow up an airliner or crash it into a building are a matter for law enforcement? He then goes on to ask "is the use of military air power to kill American citizens in U.S. airspace even authorized by any Act of Congress?". I guess he didn't catch all of the news coverage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, or bother to Google the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists act, passed in 2001.
Lastly, he has a problem with the fact that he doesn't know who authorizes the fighter pilots to shoot down a plane, a problem that can also be fixed with the casual use of Google. On September 11th, 2001, only the president had the authority to give such an order (which he did). Since then, the policy has been changed. The president is still the ultimate authority, and he if can be reached, the decision rests with him. The lowest possible persons who can order the shoot-down appears to be two Generals, one at Tyndall AFB, and one at Elmendorf AFB. The order would only be given in the most rare and extreme circumstances, and could only be given by the generals if no one higher could be reached to make the decision.
I can understand the author's desire to know exactly what circumstances would trigger a shoot down order, but if I was a terrorist attempting to complete a mission, I'd also want that list of circumstances. So I wouldn't expect to see the government releasing such information any time soon.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that there are a ton of legitimate debates regarding airline security, and our general reaction to terrorist threats and attacks, that we should be having. I think there's probably even a reasonable discussion to be had regarding whether or not the fighter scrambles are necessary. Two of the author's conclusions, though, are patently wrong. He implies that the government has not considered the morality or legality of a shoot-down, or the consequences, which is just not true. He also states that the only function the interceptor can perform is to shoot down the plane, which demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding these matters. To answer the question he poses in the title, though: Yes. The government is absolutely, 100% prepared to shoot down a commercial airliner and kill everyone on board, under the most extreme circumstances, and when doing so is the last, best option for saving many more lives on the ground.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
MPD Chief commends homeowner for catching burglar
The Chief of Police of the Manchester, New Hampshire Police Department recently sent this letter to a resident:
The burglar was caught and convicted, and sentenced to prison. Wonder what kind of letter you would get here in Massachusetts?
Source
Dear Mr. McCue, I wanted to take a moment to recognize your actions on the 17th of December, 2011 when you encountered a female burglar inside of your residence. The reports on the matter indicate that the burglar attempted to push past you in an attempt to escape and that you were physically assaulted while trying to detain her. You ultimately were able to restrain the perpetrator and call 911. I would like to personally commend you for your fast thinking and actions which led to the arrest and charging of a burglar. You have the gratitude and appreciation of your police department. I am hopeful that the ultimate resolution to this case results in justice being served for all involved. In closing, I would like to say that I am sorry that your home was burglarized and I am sorry that you were assaulted in your home. I understand that this can be a traumatic incident for any person and his/her family. I hope that you and your family will ultimately be able to move forward from this incident and I wish you all the very best. Sincerely, Chief David J. Mara
The burglar was caught and convicted, and sentenced to prison. Wonder what kind of letter you would get here in Massachusetts?
Source
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
RV crashes into swimming pool in Brockton
An RV crashed into a backyard and dove into a swimming pool on North Quincy Street this morning. The driver of the vehicle was taken to the hospital with non life-threatening injuries. Police and fire are still on scene.
Camper in pool
— Justin Graeber (@justingraeber) August 1, 2012#Brockton. One to hospital, not seriously injured twitter.com/justingraeber/…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)