C130 down NE Cooma
Originally Posted by SCPL_1988
150 miles at 6,000 feet is a no-brainer and odds are that at 6,000 feet where this C-130 broke up, that
there were a significant number of receivers monitoring the A-DSB out.
This brings in an increase in accuracy to the point of indicating altitude and airspeed. Its called M-LAT, meaning multiple stations increase accuracy of data interpreted.
there were a significant number of receivers monitoring the A-DSB out.
This brings in an increase in accuracy to the point of indicating altitude and airspeed. Its called M-LAT, meaning multiple stations increase accuracy of data interpreted.
Originally Posted by SCPL_1988
I see it as a public duty, if you have the experience and knowledge
to see the cause of an accident then you have a public duty to share it with as many people
as possible. Its improper to attack the messenger of a message you don't want to see.
to see the cause of an accident then you have a public duty to share it with as many people
as possible. Its improper to attack the messenger of a message you don't want to see.
SCPL..
I’m fully aware of Flightradar24, have a subscription and use it multiple times everyday. I’ve been watching the C130’s BAE146 737 and DC10 VLT’s on their runs a lot and can tell you that the signal is scratchy and subject to dropouts a lot when they are in remote areas at low level. The position freezes, and jumps around the screen or sometimes totally drops out.
Given my experience I will only trust ADSB data that the ATC screens get from the offical receivers correctly calibrated....
I really like flightradar24, it’s really useful......but for accident investigation????
let’s wait for the FDR report shall we.
I’m fully aware of Flightradar24, have a subscription and use it multiple times everyday. I’ve been watching the C130’s BAE146 737 and DC10 VLT’s on their runs a lot and can tell you that the signal is scratchy and subject to dropouts a lot when they are in remote areas at low level. The position freezes, and jumps around the screen or sometimes totally drops out.
Given my experience I will only trust ADSB data that the ATC screens get from the offical receivers correctly calibrated....
I really like flightradar24, it’s really useful......but for accident investigation????
let’s wait for the FDR report shall we.
Last edited by ACMS; 23rd Jan 2020 at 23:03.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK,
I get tired of all the uneducated illinformed responses that promote conclusions opposite the facts
that literally come out of the woodwork with one or two lines.
MLAT can be determined using a minimum of 3 receivers but generally requires more than 3.
Ive watched my ADSB receiver join a large number of other receivers in providing enhanced accuracy.
While old transponders are going out of use, 3 or 4 receivers can turn that standard generic transponder code
into an aircraft symbol on a map with altitude speed and direction displayed accurately.
MLAT can show surprising results, you can see A-DSB show weird information and the MLAT shows the correct
information. This is important when you see something at 85,000 feet moving along at fast or slow speed.
From my location, I've seen what is obviously classified military flights and or, other low altitude flights
that cannot be seen on Flight Aware.
There needs to be a collaborative approach to A-DSB data and I'm not convinced that Flight Aware is the
most appropriate company to be giving this data when they literally sell what you give them for free.
Before you comment, please search google for A-DSB MLAT and read how it improves accuracy.
...
Quote:
Multilateration (MLat) does not improve the accuracy of airborne ADS-B.
I get tired of all the uneducated illinformed responses that promote conclusions opposite the facts
that literally come out of the woodwork with one or two lines.
MLAT can be determined using a minimum of 3 receivers but generally requires more than 3.
Ive watched my ADSB receiver join a large number of other receivers in providing enhanced accuracy.
While old transponders are going out of use, 3 or 4 receivers can turn that standard generic transponder code
into an aircraft symbol on a map with altitude speed and direction displayed accurately.
MLAT can show surprising results, you can see A-DSB show weird information and the MLAT shows the correct
information. This is important when you see something at 85,000 feet moving along at fast or slow speed.
From my location, I've seen what is obviously classified military flights and or, other low altitude flights
that cannot be seen on Flight Aware.
There needs to be a collaborative approach to A-DSB data and I'm not convinced that Flight Aware is the
most appropriate company to be giving this data when they literally sell what you give them for free.
Before you comment, please search google for A-DSB MLAT and read how it improves accuracy.
...
Quote:
Multilateration (MLat) does not improve the accuracy of airborne ADS-B.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS,
Unfortunately, just because you "subscribe" and use "flight aware daily"
does not mean you comprehend A-DSB or that your "observations" have
any relevance to this C-130 accident.
If you checked the flight aware file for this C130 you will see that there
there are no drop outs in signal until after we see what appears to be
mid air break up with the ADSB sending signals down to a very low
altitude.
The FDR report will take a very long time and other accidents can
and might occur in the meantime.
Unfortunately, just because you "subscribe" and use "flight aware daily"
does not mean you comprehend A-DSB or that your "observations" have
any relevance to this C-130 accident.
If you checked the flight aware file for this C130 you will see that there
there are no drop outs in signal until after we see what appears to be
mid air break up with the ADSB sending signals down to a very low
altitude.
The FDR report will take a very long time and other accidents can
and might occur in the meantime.
Gee thanks mate, I bow down to your obvious superiority complex....
p.s. improve your reading skill........I never mentioned flight aware.......and it’s ADS-B ( not A-DSB )
do you even know what ADS-B means? Or ADS-C?
p.s. improve your reading skill........I never mentioned flight aware.......and it’s ADS-B ( not A-DSB )
do you even know what ADS-B means? Or ADS-C?
Same old prune self appointed experts decrying any posts suggesting anything contradictory to their own opinion is wrong. Why is it inappropriate to speculate on accidents? Does the mock moral indignation give some of you folks a sense of superiority?
Originally Posted by spektrum
Can someone please explain to me why discussing possible accident causes on the internet is such a bad thing? It seems every time something like this occurs the virtue signalers scream from atop of their moral high ground.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cedrik,
This forum is riddled with personalities that would compromise real world aviation safety
by ridiculing anyone who suggests causes and solutions to accidents.
This forum is riddled with personalities that would compromise real world aviation safety
by ridiculing anyone who suggests causes and solutions to accidents.
Originally Posted by SCPL_1988
Spektrum,
Thanks, its a sad reality that anyone and everyone who discusses or provides
an intelligent analysis of an accident results in getting personal attacks
from those who rarely post anything intelligent but 2 or 3 line inordinary posts.
FACTS
A-DSB signals for the C-130 were in this case continuous.
There is no evidence of "patchy" or "unreliable signals" involving this C-130.
Most A-DSB signals above 10,000 feet can be seen continuously across most continents.
Even at 6,000 feet, A-DSB is seen continuously over most of Australian flight routes.
......Yes, this accident happened "miles away" but 1090 Mhz Signals go a very long way at 6,000 feet and
odds are it could be seen as far afield as Albury, Canberra and Sydney let alone
the hundreds of private receivers who feed data into the system.
.
Thanks, its a sad reality that anyone and everyone who discusses or provides
an intelligent analysis of an accident results in getting personal attacks
from those who rarely post anything intelligent but 2 or 3 line inordinary posts.
FACTS
A-DSB signals for the C-130 were in this case continuous.
There is no evidence of "patchy" or "unreliable signals" involving this C-130.
Most A-DSB signals above 10,000 feet can be seen continuously across most continents.
Even at 6,000 feet, A-DSB is seen continuously over most of Australian flight routes.
......Yes, this accident happened "miles away" but 1090 Mhz Signals go a very long way at 6,000 feet and
odds are it could be seen as far afield as Albury, Canberra and Sydney let alone
the hundreds of private receivers who feed data into the system.
.
Originally Posted by Cedrik
Same old prune self appointed experts decrying any posts suggesting anything contradictory to their own opinion is wrong. Why is it inappropriate to speculate on accidents? Does the mock moral indignation give some of you folks a sense of superiority?
Have some respect for the dead will ya.
Originally Posted by SCPL_1988
Thanks Cedrik,
This forum is riddled with personalities that would compromise real world aviation safety
by ridiculing anyone who suggests causes and solutions to accidents.
This forum is riddled with personalities that would compromise real world aviation safety
by ridiculing anyone who suggests causes and solutions to accidents.
Imagine actually being this arrogant.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
markis10,
You are conflating facts with fiction.
I've had a strong interest in RF especially uhf and microwave propagation for decades.
ADSB 1090 mhz signals go amazing distances that rivals theoretical vhf expected distances.
Obviously 6000 ALT is not 6000 AGL however, over most of Australia, generally speaking
the ground is not anywhere near 6000 ft altitude and has a hell of range.
Now back to relevance. The A-DSB information indicates that this C130 broke up
in flight several thousand feet above the ground and was NOT at less than 1,000 feet above the ground.
You are conflating facts.
Your attitude of waiting till official reports are in is typical of old school attitudes
that compromise expedited responses to probable accident causes.
In modern language,its called denial and its a major factor in failing
to address root causes of aviation accidents.
You are conflating facts with fiction.
I've had a strong interest in RF especially uhf and microwave propagation for decades.
ADSB 1090 mhz signals go amazing distances that rivals theoretical vhf expected distances.
Obviously 6000 ALT is not 6000 AGL however, over most of Australia, generally speaking
the ground is not anywhere near 6000 ft altitude and has a hell of range.
Now back to relevance. The A-DSB information indicates that this C130 broke up
in flight several thousand feet above the ground and was NOT at less than 1,000 feet above the ground.
You are conflating facts.
Your attitude of waiting till official reports are in is typical of old school attitudes
that compromise expedited responses to probable accident causes.
In modern language,its called denial and its a major factor in failing
to address root causes of aviation accidents.
Originally Posted by markis10
I have to take you to task with your "facts" as they are not facts. You post smacks of a lack of knowledge of RF and the Australian terrain. An aircraft at a reported altitude of 6000ft is not 6000ft above ground level, which is the scenario you base your facts on. In this case at 6000 ft the aircraft was probably at best 1000 ft above most of the terrain and 1000ft BELOW the hightest terrain in the snowy area. As such, the footprint of microwave signals would be very limited indeed , likely sub 100km. As a former air traffic controller I can assure you sub 10000ft coverage at VHF is very unreliable in that area (it was part of my sector) let alone at microwave frequencies. There may well have been an enthusiast nearby who had coverage but I would prefer to wait for the official details to come out before any analysis of data is made.
Some more public speculation from a pilot who has been flying Herks for 40 years
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...cooma/11894892
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...cooma/11894892
Last edited by Cedrik; 23rd Jan 2020 at 23:31. Reason: Additions
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cedrick,
Coulson Aviation has grounded their Large Air Tanker fleet as a precaution and as "a mark of respect", and an investigation will take place into the incident.
Coulson have chosen their only way to mitigate liability
that will be another issue.
Coulson Aviation has grounded their Large Air Tanker fleet as a precaution and as "a mark of respect", and an investigation will take place into the incident.
Coulson have chosen their only way to mitigate liability
that will be another issue.
Can all you speculators, SCPL, Cedric, etc. please **** off and die. We who live here are in the middle of a national fire emergency that is not going to be over for at least another month. We are losing firefighters as it is and the last thing the bereaved need as well as our wives, friends and children is some pseudo intellectual wankers thousands of miles away, pontificating about something they know nothing about.
To put the loss in terms you might possibly understand and then withdraw, when you are on the fire ground most of us I think regard the water bombers as something like a guardian angel or big brother and we feel their loss exactly as you would a member of your own family - which those three crew are now for eternity.
To put the loss in terms you might possibly understand and then withdraw, when you are on the fire ground most of us I think regard the water bombers as something like a guardian angel or big brother and we feel their loss exactly as you would a member of your own family - which those three crew are now for eternity.
Originally Posted by SCPL_1988
m
Now back to relevance. The A-DSB information indicates that this C130 broke up
in flight several thousand feet above the ground and was NOT at less than 1,000 feet above the ground.
You are conflating facts.
Your attitude of waiting till official reports are in is typical of old school attitudes
that compromise expedited responses to probable accident causes.
.
Now back to relevance. The A-DSB information indicates that this C130 broke up
in flight several thousand feet above the ground and was NOT at less than 1,000 feet above the ground.
You are conflating facts.
Your attitude of waiting till official reports are in is typical of old school attitudes
that compromise expedited responses to probable accident causes.
.
My comments are based on my experience as a former ATC, helitak pilot, and current RF specialist for microwave data transmission who has driven countless times down the Monaro highway beaconing APRS, not an enthusiast!
Last edited by markis10; 23rd Jan 2020 at 23:50.
Originally Posted by trashie
When operating the C130 MAAFS program in 1983 during the Ash Wednesday operations it was important that the aircraft maintained its maximum 3G protection against the turbulence. Due to the substantial weight of the system and retardant in the fuselage the outboard fuel tanks were required to carry maximum fuel to prevent excessive upward wing flexing. This meant the aircraft was always operating close to max all up weight.and increased power off stall speeds..
Very sad at this tragic loss. Sincere condolences to the crew's family and friends. RIP
Very sad at this tragic loss. Sincere condolences to the crew's family and friends. RIP
Personally I don't take any offence at people speculating.
Natural instinct as a pilot - look at the incident and the evidence - think of possible scenarios and imagine what the report might say.
All with the underlying intention of always thinking safety, safety, safety.
CFIT, structural failure, mechanical failure, momentary loss of situational awareness in extraordinarily challenging conditions?
What I do object to is the vitriol that self appointed sky-gods on this particular part of the forum heap on others who might innocently speculate or ask questions.
It's like a chest beating drunken bar-room brawl out the back of Burke.
We post not just to express condolences about a terrible accident, but to question and learn.
Like my grizzled old instructor who would asked me years ago when I'd done something stupid - "OK, what do you think happened?"
