Kingston terrorist arrest
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:54 pm
Kingston terrorist arrest
Why would a Pilatus PC-12 be circling over Kingston for weeks prior to the arrest of the Muslim kid? What kind of surveillance above the cloud can you do that you cannot do on the ground or with a drone?
- cdnpilot77
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
RCMP surveillance....do they have any thermal imaging? Rumour ‘round the campfire is they initially thought they were dealing with a large scale grow op.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:54 pm
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
Grow op in downtown Kingston?,,, oops sorry, I forgot about the Molson plant in Barrie Ont! Cannot satellites do the job these days? No agreement with the USA ?
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
It is pretty obvious that a PC12 would be wayyyyy more cheaper to operate than a satelliteaeroncasuperchief wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:55 pm Grow op in downtown Kingston?,,, oops sorry, I forgot about the Molson plant in Barrie Ont! Cannot satellites do the job these days? No agreement with the USA ?
And it’s not like you can refuel a satellite if you keep repositioning it left and right for tasks.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:54 pm
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
What were they looking for ? Internet, cell audio , movements, Kingston is not exactly Alert !
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
The sensor package on the pc12 would dictate how it flew. I would assume they needed to loiter in different areas to surveil the locations. I'm thinking they'd be on the low side of 10000ft. They don't want to conflict with anyone during the missions either. The pc12 is not the stealthiest but at least they weren't using an mu-2.
I'm just glad they're getting use of all these aircraft we pay for.
I'm just glad they're getting use of all these aircraft we pay for.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:14 pm
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
A Kingston newspaper said they were at 7,000' and making plenty of noise.
It sounds like pretty much everyone in Kingston heard it circling all night for 2-3 weeks. I would have thought they would have been higher so the noise did not call attention to it.
It was also mentioned reasonably quickly that while not showing on online tracking sites the registration and track was being picked up by hobbyist receivers (specifically Neil Aird, owner of DHC-2.com) and that it would have been very inexpensive and easy for anyone who wanted to avoid the surveillance (ie organized crime) to know about the plane.
It sounds like pretty much everyone in Kingston heard it circling all night for 2-3 weeks. I would have thought they would have been higher so the noise did not call attention to it.
It was also mentioned reasonably quickly that while not showing on online tracking sites the registration and track was being picked up by hobbyist receivers (specifically Neil Aird, owner of DHC-2.com) and that it would have been very inexpensive and easy for anyone who wanted to avoid the surveillance (ie organized crime) to know about the plane.
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
Some little birdies say it was the USA side that told the Canadian side to look here or there. Burning a PC12 is cheap.
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
Yes it was the FBI who picked up on the whole thing. Our government is more concerned with letting terrorists in than stopping them. I still find it interesting why they had to use the plane as opposed to ground based surveillance.
Let’s Go Brandon
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
Often a plane is used when the target is known to be mobile over large distances. For instance if someone was to travel often between Montreal and Toronto. There is usually less risk of being detected by counter surveillance when tracking in the air vs mobile surveillance on the ground.
I do agree however that it is very weird that they loitered as long as they did in such a loud aircraft. They have access to aircraft that you would likely not hear (or barely hear) at 7,000' and have the same sensor packages.
Re: Kingston terrorist arrest
Maybe the loud PC-12 was not the only aircraft loitering... Maybe a more quiet plane was also able to operate to observe, while the PC-12 attracted the attention - it would not be the first time more than one aircraft was used. I have approved sensor packages on police aircraft. I was amazed at the capability of these systems, they are far and away more capable than the commercial FLIR systems I have also flown. From my observations, if you would like to hide from police sensor systems, you'll have to be simultaneously optically invisible, no warmer than the background temperature, while not moving. I opine that any person in that condition is not a threat. Otherwise, good job police! Thanks!I do agree however that it is very weird that they loitered as long as they did in such a loud aircraft. They have access to aircraft that you would likely not hear (or barely hear) at 7,000' and have the same sensor packages.
If people don't like the noise, perhaps they would also consider the many cars and trucks driving around town with loud exhausts. I bet those vehicles were more annoying, and drowned out the sound of the PC-12, while they drove around town.