Malaysia Airlines Plane

Of course, if any of you want to have a look yourself:

http://www.tomnod.com/nod/challenge/malaysiaairsar2014

Large high-res images are being uploaded there daily for people to search through themselves and look for debris/rafts/slicks etc. First one to find it gets a free Z4-Forum tax disc holder!
 
Ste said:
Primary radar only really covers areas within a few hundred miles of the radar stations, after that they use Automatic Dependent Surveillance, which is where the plane itself sends information through satellites, which I believe is more intermittent, and only works at certain altitudes.
Click to expand...

Secondary radar is not really any different in terms of coverage. Also I think "a few hundred miles" is wildly optimistic. In fact after 80 miles or so there's little to no useful returns.

I don't really know why you've quoted me as if to correct me, I merely wanted to clarify what Dale B and Bing had posted.

For the record I've been in air traffic control for 15 years, the last 13 of which have been at London Terminal Control looking at a radar screen pretty much every day of my working life.

As has been alluded to earlier by Bing and yourself, once the aircraft is over a big expanse of water contact could quite easily be lost.
 
Ben Cole said:
Ste said:
Primary radar only really covers areas within a few hundred miles of the radar stations, after that they use Automatic Dependent Surveillance, which is where the plane itself sends information through satellites, which I believe is more intermittent, and only works at certain altitudes.
Click to expand...

Secondary radar is not really any different in terms of coverage. Also I think "a few hundred miles" is wildly optimistic. In fact after 80 miles or so there's little to no useful returns.

I don't really know why you've quoted me as if to correct me, I merely wanted to clarify what Dale B and Bing had posted.

For the record I've been in air traffic control for 15 years, the last 13 of which have been at London Terminal Control looking at a radar screen pretty much every day of my working life.

As has been alluded to earlier by Bing and Ste, once the aircraft is over a big expanse of water contact could quite easily be list.
Click to expand...

Stop being so precious, I was merely adding a bit of meat to the bones of your good and informative points :thumbsup:

Oh, and I quoted you because I was following on from something you said, it's how things work from time to time on an internet forum, hope that clarifies that x
 
Ben Cole said:
Not being precious, also if you want to "add meat" then add correct meat.
Click to expand...

This is a car forum, and a light hearted discussion. Exaggerating the distance primary radar will be useful may not be 100% accurate but doesn't really change the point I was making, which was that out over the sea planes are tracked by Automatic Dependent Surveillance systems and the like rather than radar.
 
Ben Cole said:
Dale_B said:
I watch the 'Air crash investigations' on Discovery when I can and was always under the impression air traffic control monitor the locations of planes at all times? (Though I am probably mistaken).
Click to expand...

If the aircraft was identified originally then it can be tracked until it drops out of radar coverage. Either distance from the radar head or low altitude will be the factors that make it disappear.

Bing said:
They can only track them if the transponder is broadcasting,
Click to expand...

That's not true. Primary radar returns can be seen from birds let alone something as big as an airliner.
If the transponder is not functioning you won't see down linked data like call sign or altitude that's all.
Click to expand...

Ben Cole, at what distance from the radar head would the aircraft not be detectable? In that situation, the transponder could be used for information? And would it be apparent to air traffic control the transponder is out of order, so say control could ask the pilot for more detail / check if they are okay?

It's a bit disappointing the searchers mentioned on BBC website are using 'eye, to look for signs of wreckage / casualties. Like some here have mentioned, things could well be under water. Hope more sophisticated methods are being used as more people / countries have gotten involved in the search.
 
Ste said:
This is a car forum, and a light hearted discussion. Exaggerating the distance primary radar will be useful may not be 100% accurate but doesn't really change the point I was making, which was that out over the sea planes are tracked by Automatic Dependent Surveillance systems and the like rather than radar.
Click to expand...

It's a good point, just unrelated to mine that's all. That's why I was confused why you quoted me as if to correct me. Apologies if I misunderstood.



Oakandacorns said:
Ben Cole, at what distance from the radar head would the aircraft not be detectable?
Click to expand...

Honestly, maximum range of long distance radars I don't really know but like radio comms it's pretty much governed by line of sight (curvature of the earth). Transponder data is a radio transmission, so also limited by the same factors. If a transponder fails whilst in radar coverage, the radar return would change from a dot with a name and some numbers to just a dot. A controller could then indeed discuss the matter with the pilot as I have done many times.


What I can say is that above 80 miles or so it's useless for separation. More importantly, if an aircraft was in trouble and descended below say 8000ft, coverage would get patchy even as close as 40 miles at a guess. When working I can see a mosaic picture of most UK radars. This allows me to see aircraft disappearing over Ireland in one direction and northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands in others.
 
Ben: not at all, you clearly know more then me and know your stuff, I was just adding to your posts to give Bing more info on how planes are tracked and monitored on their flight plans as that seems to be something alot of people want to know about when thinking about this.

I see recently it's been speculated that military radar tracked the jet much later after it stopped squawking (as I mentioned earlier you'd expect military radar and systems to be more thorough) which suggests it u turned and flew back over Malaysia. Could explain the lack of any debris in the areas being searched. I believe the malacca straits the other side have been mentioned?

Still doesn't explain alot as to why transponders were turned off or failed, the lack of communication or reason for turning back and presumerably descending.

Part of me is beginning to think it was a failed hijack. People keep pointing out nobody has taken credit but maybe that's because it failed. Perhaps they tried to fly it somewhere or into something but for whatever reason were prevented from doing so. It's the only real explanation for the plane disappearing from conventional ATC tracking systems and failing to respond but still seemingly flying.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk.
 
Ste said:
Part of me is beginning to think it was a failed hijack. People keep pointing out nobody has taken credit but maybe that's because it failed.
Click to expand...

From what I've read this certainly fits.
 
Just watched CNN and another followup show, it seems the transponder stopped working half way across the water, the plane then turned and flew back across Malaysia and disappeared on the west side .... it seems it was tracked by "someone" and the military knows where it ended up approximately. Some strange things..... two passengers were on board with stolen passports, nobody batted an eye. the cabin crew seems to have a history of laxness, inviting passengers to ride with them in the cockpit (in the past, two cute blondes from South Africa)

Looks like someone turned off some systems and took control of the plane... maybe. Either way, it's gone and all the people are too...so sad!.. time to stiffen up some security protocols over there I think.

and I have to take my belt and shoes off to get on a local flight. Security is just bizarre now...
 
I agree mcbeee. One of the most disturbing aspects about this whole episode is that people can seemingly board aircraft on an international flight with stolen passports and not get picked up. Malaysia is supposed to be a developed country too not some tinpot ramshackle failed nation.
 
One of the lads with a stolen passport had his mother waiting for him at the other end. They've ruled them out as terrorists saying they were going to Europe for work.
Still beggars belief they managed to get on the plane with stolen passports.
 
andysat said:
Wasnt there two patches of oil spotted on top of the water earlier on in the week?
Click to expand...

Yes but they dont think it was avgas and thought the slick was caused by something that was marine based

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
Ben Cole said:
Ste said:
Part of me is beginning to think it was a failed hijack. People keep pointing out nobody has taken credit but maybe that's because it failed.
Click to expand...

From what I've read this certainly fits.
Click to expand...

What's to say a military gets jumpy at a potentially hijacked plane flying towards major populations with no comms and shoots it down. Nobody is going to want to own up to shooting down a commercial aeroplane with 200-odd civilians on, especially with the majority of them being Chinese. Thus it's all hushed up and covered up, little information is given causing people to search the wrong places and throw the scent off, while a cover up is developed suggesting mechanical problems etc.
 
eurgh this whole thing weirds me out, something more than meets the eye somewhere it seems.. I fly around 6000-12000 kms a month for work so I guess it feels kinda close to home (plus, given that that sort of area isn't too far from here I guess it IS kinda closer to home! :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom