Question for Pilots Re Private Aircraft

[TromboneAl]

In a book I'm writing, and extremely rich bad guy kidnaps someone, loads him onto a private jet, and flies him from Denver to Brazil. This happens in the future (2030).

The good guy's partner sees the aircraft's tail numbers.

1. Do you call them "tail numbers"?

2. Is the owner of a private aircraft required to file a correct flight plan? If so, would it be noticed that the plane was not following that plan?

3. If reported an hour after the plane took off, would it be possible to track that plane?

4. A commercial flight from DEN to LIM takes twelve hours. How long would it take for a top-quality private jet?

Thanks!

 

[samclem]

1. Do you call them "tail numbers"?

Yes. Sometimes people refer to them as the "N-number," since aircraft registered in the US have numbers that start with "N."

2. Is the owner of a private aircraft required to file a correct flight plan? If so, would it be noticed that the plane was not following that plan?

If the flight will be conducted under visual flight rules (VFR), then no flight plan is required at all, at least in the US. VFR flight plans serve mainly to alert authorities when a plane is late, and to give them some clue as to where to look for it. If the flight is at/above 18K ft (where a corporate jet spends most of its time), then it will be under instrument flight rules (IFR), a flight plan is required, it will be under ATC control, and any deviations from the flight plan would be noticed immediately. In practice, a corporate jet on a long-range international flight will almost certainly be on an IFR flight plan the entire way so that they can legally fly through clouds, fly at high altitude, and not bump into any other aircraft.

3. If reported an hour after the plane took off, would it be possible to track that plane?

By the timeframe you are talking about (2030), the newer ADS-B (GPS-based) air traffic control system will be fully implemented. Planes equipped with "ADS-B Out" and which have the equipment turned on (mandatory under all IFR flying and some VFR airspace) will be easy to find whenever they are in contact with the air traffic control system.

Also, sophisticated corporate jets frequently use other non-ATC related comm systems to keep in touch with the company HQs via satelite link. These systems may automatically relay info on the acft location, maintenance codes, etc.

4. A commercial flight from DEN to LIM takes twelve hours. How long would it take for a top-quality private jet?

I don't think they cruise much faster than an airliner. Someone with real experience will chime in. Going faster burns more fuel, and reduces maximum range. The main advantage of a private jet is flexibility in scheduling and some degree of privacy, the time saved in actual flight compared to an airliner probably isn't very much.
Edited to add: I looked up some numbers. The new Gulfstream G500 (a very high end bizjet) is designed for a long-range cruise speed of .85 mach. The cruise speed for a Boeing 777 is .84 mach. So, the flight times won't be appreciably different.

All the above subject to correction by more in-the-know folks.

 

[Scrapr]

Flight Aware tracks flights. I'm not sure if that is only the ATC tracked flights or the VFR distinction as Sam Clem mentions. I know that a lot of corporate jets are tracked on Flight Aware

https://flightaware.com

 

[corn18]

samclem nailed it. And private jets cruise at the same speed as airliners if they are on a max range profile, which a 12 hour flight would be. 12 hours is right at the max of the best business jets today, so 12 hours isn't unreasonable for a 2030 time frame.

Flightaware uses the ATC system, but as samclem mentioned, there are many comms systems on a private jet and some cannot be turned off. You could turn some of them off and disappear from the ATC system, but there would be forensic evidence available within hours that would likely pinpoint your location after the fact.

 

[check6]

Flight Aware tracks flights. I'm not sure if that is only the ATC tracked flights or the VFR distinction as Sam Clem mentions. I know that a lot of corporate jets are tracked on Flight Aware

https://flightaware.com

If it is a VFR or IFR FILED flight plan it can be tracked on FlightAware. If you have ADS-B OUT even if you don't file a flight plan, I believe you can be tracked.

From FlightAware:

In addition to receiving over 45 different government air traffic control and private datalink sources, FlightAware operates a worldwide network of ADS-B and Mode S receivers that track ADS-B or Mode S equipped aircraft flying around the globe. ADS-B equipped aircraft emit their exact position and Mode S aircraft can be tracked via multilateration (MLAT) when the signal is received by three or more receivers. FlightAware owns and operates these receivers at hundreds of airports around the world in conjunction with airport operators.

FlightAware designs and manufactures FlightFeeder, a network ADS-B receiver that receives ADS-B data and feeds the data to FlightAware's servers over any available Internet connection.

We also invite customers and professional users to connect to FlightAware's network and feed additional ADS-B data from their receivers using the methods described below. ADS-B data contributed is made available on FlightAware's free web site and mobile apps.

 

[corn18]

ADS-B out is not a requirement yet for any aircraft. As it sits right now, it is supposed to be in all aircraft by 2020. This is for OUT only. That means all aircraft will always transmit ADS information to the ground stations, whether VFR or IFR.

Europe is adopting a similar system.

There is still an issue with trans oceanic flights as there are some gaps in the ADS ground network coverage. That is where ADS-B in will come in handy as then the aircraft can talk to each other and form a mesh network where there isn't ground coverage.

 

[SecondCor521]

Wow, there are some knowledgeable people on this board!

For the sake of T-Al's book, since the bad guys would probably know all of that, I wonder if they might fly WSW of Denver to get off the west coast of the US relatively quickly, then turn southward. Could they fly out of range of US-based radar and these ADS receivers by flying out over the Pacific?

They could also, if they were savvy enough, disable the ADS and other transmitters, right? Or possibly change the transmission ID's so they looked like a different aircraft?

 

[samclem]

As it sits right now, it [ADS] is supposed to be in all aircraft by 2020. This is for OUT only. That means all aircraft will always transmit ADS information to the ground stations, whether VFR or IFR.

All correct as far as Al's project is concerned, thanks. Just to say it--at the very "primitive" end of the private aviation world, there will still be flying allowed without ADS-B Out after 2020. [-] Cheapskates[/-] [-]Bums[/-] Casual pilots who are content with operating within some restrictions will be allowed to do so, and save the $3000++ for equipment.

So, all you folks zooming around out there--keep your head out! We're there, dinosaurs causing trouble and not showing up on your display.

 

[corn18]

If they were very knowledgable about how all of the comms systems work, they could shut them all down. Shutting off the ATC systems is straight forward. The issue is with the secondary comms. If the aircraft has sat comms, there is a lot of info that can flow through that system.

It would be easier to just have the aircraft built to have an EMCON (Emissions Control) mode so that you flip a switch (or select a mode) and ALL external emissions would cease (some military aircraft have this). This would make for a cool stealth plane for a 2030 spy story.

 

[corn18]

Wow, there are some knowledgeable people on this board!

For the sake of T-Al's book, since the bad guys would probably know all of that, I wonder if they might fly WSW of Denver to get off the west coast of the US relatively quickly, then turn southward. Could they fly out of range of US-based radar and these ADS receivers by flying out over the Pacific?

They could also, if they were savvy enough, disable the ADS and other transmitters, right? Or possibly change the transmission ID's so they looked like a different aircraft?

This would probably be the best chance to disappear. Even with all of the stuff turned off on the airplane, there will still be radars looking up and satellites looking down (visual, IR and Radar). Best to get away from any regions of interest that might have all of that hardware pointing at it and the middle of the Pacific would be much less watched than a Denver-Brazil direct flight path.

 

[samclem]

Not to derail T-Al's story, but it would be much easier for a bad guy to hide the fact that the abductee was on a particular aircraft than it would to hide the aircraft itself from detection. There's lots of air traffic coming and going all the time, and hiding nefarious activities in all that noise would seem to be much easier than trying to go absolutely dark.



And if somebody >is< going to try to sneak about, they'd probably have a whole box of fake registration decals to put on as needed.

 

[TromboneAl]

Great info, thanks! I haven't decided whether the bad guys work to disguise their destination. Here's a very rough-draft excerpt based on your info, Sam. Wade is an FAA rep:

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]A virtual screen appeared on the wall, and Wade stood even though he could have controlled it from his seat. He was a man who could most charitably be described as pudgy.[/FONT]

“[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]Here’s a photo of the type of aircraft we’re dealing with.” The screen showed a sleek jet flying in a blue sky with puffy clouds in the background. It had six windows on the side and wings that flipped up at the tips. “That’s the type of craft you saw, Ms. Booker?”[/FONT]

“[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]Yes,” Faith said, “exactly.” [/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]The aircraft with the N number provided us had it’s ADS-B Out switched on, as required. Oops, sorry for the jargon. The jet’s GPS reporting system was switched on, which is a requirement for IFR flights. That made it easy to locate whenever it was in contact with with the air traffic control system.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]The screen switched to a map showing the lower and upper halves of North and South America, respectively. “This curved line represents the great circle route that the plane took. You can see that it travels over the Gulf of Mexico, over the Yucatan Peninsula, here, over Panama, then over the Pacific. Note that the line is dotted south of the Yucatan. That’s where we lost track of it.” The FAA rep made a gesture and the map changed, showing all of South America with most of the continent outlined with an irregular ellipse. The line enclosed the western two thirds of Brazil as well as Peru, Bolivia, Chile and parts of Paraguay. “Based on a number of factors such as fuel capacity, cruising speed, and so on, this shows where the aircraft may have landed.”[/FONT]

“[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]Are you serious?” Thurmond asked. “You can’t narrow it down any further than that?”[/FONT]

“[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]I’m afraid not, sir. There were a lot of what-ifs involved. Know also that they might have landed and recharged or the passengers might have been transferred to another plane that could land on a small airstrip. [/FONT]

 

[Souschef]

All aircraft departing will pass through the ADIZ, or Air Defense Identification Zone. Unless the jet tries to fly under the radar, which would be difficult, the pilot would have to file a flight plan. You might want to Google ADIZ to see all the particulars

 

[samclem]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif] Note that the line is dotted south of the Yucatan. That’s where we lost track of it.” The FAA rep made a gesture and the map changed, showing all of South America with most of the continent outlined with an irregular ellipse. [/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]We'd have to find out about that, I suspect coverage would be solid or at least intermittent over most of S America for a plane at high altitude. Now, if they turned off their transmitters, that would be a different story, but then they'd draw attention to themselves when they showed up on terminal approach or when they actually landed.
[/FONT]

As Souschef pointed out, there are also military radars that see targets based on simple reflection off the airframe (no GPS, no cooperation needed by the target aircraft). In theory, it is possible to compare these "skin paint" targets against those that are properly identified, and thereby spot somebody sneaking in. In practice, this can be harder to do, and unless the military radar system is at a heightened state of alert or it is set up to detect this stuff (smuggling, etc), it would be plausible that somebody could get through.
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]

Know also that they might have landed and recharged or the passengers might have been transferred to another plane that could land on a small airstrip

[/FONT]
"Recharged? " Maybe "Refueled?"

 

[OldShooter]

Wow. Lots of stuff here.

Flightaware simply displays radar tracks for identified aircraft where the track information is not restricted in the FAA computer. For example, you will never see a track for AF1. "Identified" means that ATC has assigned a discrete transponder code or the aircraft is reporting its identity and location via ADS-B. VFR flight plans don't count. A VFR pilot who has requested ATC flight following will have been given a transponder code and will usually show up on Flightaware but not always. I have no idea why it's not 100%.

The advertising for ADS-B sounds wonderful, but the transmitting aircraft must be line-of-sight to a ground station for the information to get to the FAA. ADS-B can be used for inter-aircraft collision avoidance without there being a ground station in range of wither one, but I'm 99% sure that even if one is talking to a ground station, information on the other flight is not relayed to FAA. The more mountainous the terrain and the lower the altitude, the more likely that the aircraft will not be in contact with a ground station.

There are commercial services using satellite receivers that can track participating airplanes regardless of ground station coverage.

A "primary" radar return is old school, where the radar energy is reflected back from the airplane and no transponder or ADS-B is involved. A guy trying to get out of Dodge secretly would probably be a primary return. Depending on where you are in the US, FAA radar coverage may not exist below 7,000 feet or even higher. Other people's radars (shhh!), particularly near international borders will have coverage to nearly ground level and will be particularly interested in primary-only returns. Coming into the US in this mode will probably get you a close look at a couple of F-16s. Leaving, I'm not so sure.

Above 18,000 feet, which is mostly jet territory, IFR flight plans are required. A primary return there (Class A airspace) would arouse somewhat alarmed curiosity, at least to the point of careful tracking to, hopefully, its destination so the pilot can talk to some gendarmes. Depending on where in the US it was, it might also attract a couple of F-16s.

I think @samclem is probably right. Hiding the guy in a gaggle of airplanes is probably much easier than hiding an airplane on a long international flight.

Another issue is range. Whatever type of jet is chosen, check its range. There may well be a need for one or two fueling stops on the way to Brazil. Trying to fly a jet at low altitudes to evade detection wastes huge amounts of fuel.

Regarding “That’s the type of craft you saw, Ms. Booker?” it is the case that smaller private jets, especially the ones with tail mounted twin engines (the vast majority) all look pretty much alike and are usually painted in fairly anonymous schemes. I can't tell most of them apart and I hang around airports.

 

[OldShooter]

A couple more thoughts:

1) If you want an airplane that even a random person can identify, use a HondaJet. The engines are over the wings on pylons, a totally unique design AFIK and probably patented.

2) Regarding an emissions control mode that would be cute but not necessary. A quick check of the major systems schematic will show which circuit breakers need to be pulled to shut down satlink, transponders, and ADS-B out boxes. This is part of training for the pilots' type ratings. This capability is necessary in case of smoke/fire. Also cockpit on/off for these boxes is necessary because they are dual redundant and only one can be in operation at a time.

 

[REattempt]

“[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]Here’s a photo of the type of aircraft we’re dealing with.” The screen showed a sleek jet flying in a blue sky with puffy clouds in the background. It had six windows on the side and wings that flipped up at the tips. “That’s the type of craft you saw, Ms. Booker?”[/FONT]

“[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]Yes,” Faith said, “exactly.” [/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, serif]The aircraft with the N number provided us had it’s ADS-B Out switched on, as required. Oops, sorry for the jargon. The jet’s GPS reporting system was switched on, which is a requirement for IFR flights. That made it easy to locate whenever it was in contact with with the air traffic control system.”[/FONT]

Just a few nit picks, but you asked.

First, technically n number is written as "N-Number."

Second, if he was wasn't aware of his use of technical jargon until he talks about ADS-B, Wade would have said "six windows on the side and winglets." or "six windows on the side and wings with winglets." Winglets is the more technically correct term for "wings that flipped up at the tips."

Seems odd that he vacillates between not using jargon, then using jargon, then recognizing he is using jargon and reverts to non jargon so quickly.

Commercial pilot and certificated flight instructor.

 

[TromboneAl]

Excellent tips. I will incorporate them all.

>"Recharged? " Maybe "Refueled?"

The idea is that it's an electric plane (this is 2030). I haven't decided on that yet, but if I keep it, I'll state it more explicitly.

 

[samclem]

The idea is that it's an electric plane (this is 2030). I haven't decided on that yet, but if I keep it, I'll state it more explicitly.

I would suggest dropping the electric high speed flight angle. It absolutely won't happen by 2030, it takes about 10 years to get a clean- sheet conventional bizjet design flying, something as exotic as an electric high speed bizjet would take much longer. Add that the energy density of batteries isn't near that of jet fuel, the extensive infrastructure that would be needed to recharge the massive battery packs at a lot of airfields, cooling the pack while recharging it in a reasonable time span, the very difficult business case for going electric for this application, etc. Electric planes now are novelties with low wing loadings, low top speeds, and modest range. If fast, useful designs ever happen, they will at first be quite conspicuous at the small number of places that can service them, just the opposite of what your story needs. Conversely, tons of small airports have a fuel truck with Jet A. IMO, the in-service electric jet by 2030 is something you should reconsider.

 

[Totoro]

Electric jets will first be deployed for short distances, Easyjet is planning to do this in the next decade. It's mainly to comply with ecological and noise issues, I think - preventing crippling regulation in favor of e.g. trains.

2030 is only twelve years away, noone realistically is planning to see electric planes for long distances there.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/27/easyjet-electric-planes-wright-electric-flights

 

[Cessna152]

Excellent tips. I will incorporate them all.

>"Recharged? " Maybe "Refueled?"

The idea is that it's an electric plane (this is 2030). I haven't decided on that yet, but if I keep it, I'll state it more explicitly.

They'll all be fusion or solar powered by then.

If the hostage is not conscious or there doesn't need to be a full-size cabin involved, then any long-range aircraft would do, including piston powered (canards always look futuristic):

Rutan Long-EZ
Velocity

According to this site, "The Velocity XL is a canard configuration, home-built, four place, 200mph+, off-shoot of Burt Rutan's original EZ design. Constructed of the latest composite materials (carbon fiber), the low radar signature of this plane (about that of a large bird), it's high speed, and good payload, has made it a favorite among drug runners."

Your rich evil person, being a frugal person, would simply buy a Velocity XL somebody else built (at much lower cost than even the smallest jet) and do their evil deeds with it. They'd also have fun flying it - I mean, why can't your average evil person engage in pleasant hobbies, too, between their kidnappings?