Message posted by Steve Douglass on January 16, 2004 at 12:32:30 PST:
Maybe now that I finally learned how to properly post to this forum (Doh!) all can read my reply to Magoo's post. >I'm the first to admit the intercept is a bit unusual. First, I have never heard a test aircraft using the call sign "Lockheed" and the fact that it is a 4-number suffix is unusual as well. Most "secret" test aircraft assume call signs of already recognized aircraft such as the F-117 program did ( using an established A-7 call ) with the only exception being the "Goat Sucker" call sign which I think was a veiled reference to the Chupacabra ( a mythical night-beast) which the stealth fighter surely was for a time. I'm sure monitors around test bases such as Edwards AFB have heard many more test call signs and could tell us if they have ever heard "Lockheed" used. Follow-up post: t seems to me (from Magoo's post) that he thinks the report and .wav file is bogus. What would that serve? Why create something that on the surface seems phony only to have it shot down in forums like this? Then again ... who really knows anyone's motives? However, consider this. I have been listening and recording military radio communications over the last 20 years. I write a monthly column on communications for a national magazine. I have even written a published a book on the subject. If I wanted to fake something like this I could have done a much better job and there would be no nagging questions about the validity of the post. Rest assured, what you hear is what I got. There was no editing other than removing the some of the dead air between transmissions. The rest of the transmission was NOT recorded because the weaker (although perfectly audible to me) signal strength of the rest of the transmission that did not trigger the cheap VOX feature on the micro-cassette recorder attached to my Uniden BC-780XLT. I was very irked to hear I hadn't captured it all. I gave posting the .wav file a lot of thought. I knew it was strange and would draw fire, however I thought it was (no matter what it turns out to be) important enough event to share with others and see what their reactions and comments would be. However, it wouldn't be the first time I had intercepted communications that seemed .. "abnormal" Maybe the pilot made a mistake in reporting his altitude? Just maybe he was so engaged in what he was doing he made a slip of the tongue? Although I don't have the rest of the transmission to back up what I am about to say, from the tone of voice (sort of tongue in cheek) of the Alb. Ctr. controller, it seems he probably already knew the aircraft type and altitude before he asked the pilot and therefore saw no need to correct the pilot's report .. or even yet .. maybe he knew his true altitude and didn't realize the mistake in the pilot's report? As in your post: "After consulting with several informed sources in both the US and Australian Air Forces, the general consensus appears to be that there is absolutely “NO WAY” an aircrew member would transmit the fact that they are a “classified type” over an open frequency in a non-emergency situation. If he had said what has been alleged, then he would be in a whole lot of trouble. Additionally, if flying in an MOA that has a ceiling of 18,000 feet, why would he not be able to state his true altitude?" This is not the not the first time I have heard a pilot say he was a classified type and couldn't reveal his true type and altitude. I have a recording somewhere (I'll see if I can dig it up) that was posted on America Online (I can't recall the who posted it) saying just that. I think the pilot was flying somewhere over the Edwards AFB ranges when he said it. I'll make it available for posting if I find it. Anyone recall that file or know if it is still available on AOL? As for why he would state he was a classified type is beyond my thinking as well. Risking at sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, maybe we were supposed to hear this transmission. It wouldn't be the first time the existence of a classified aircraft was leaked to gauge the American Taxpayers interest ( and I'm just spit-balling here) or to trick an eavesdropping foreign adversary into thinking we had expensive technology they would have to spend millions of dollars to counter. In closing I think it is great that we ALL question anything we see posted on the Internet. I know I'm preaching to the choir when I say" Why take anything at face value?" However, how does this sell short the professionalism of test pilots and air traffic controllers? In what I monitored I see no lack of professionalism at all. Is an off-the cuff about the trip home being slower unprofessional in any way? In my opinion it just shows the ATC controller had worked this type of (or even) this aircraft before and was well aware of its capabilities. Maybe that's why he didn't call him on his altitude mistake? -Steve Douglass
(Post post note here: I'm not saying that Maggo says the wav is bogus, but he does seem to imply that) -SD
"In the meantime, I think we are selling short the professionalism of flight test pilots and air traffic controllers by indulging in this type of speculation and spreading of unsubstantiated single source information. "
In Reply to: Re: AW&ST Reports "Secret Streaker" Heading to Groom posted by Chris on January 16, 2004 at 11:49:02 PST:
Replies: