C130 down NE Cooma
But your point about the limited value of GS is a valid one, particularly given the reported wind strength at the scene.
OK all you whingers, Sunfish, grizzley, what sort of experience or knowledge is acceptable on prune to be allowed to comment?
Can only prune regulars comment on topics?
Do you need to have over 1000 posts?
Is it not being employed as a pilot or flown commercially but to have flown privately a posting prerequisite?
Is it just calling yourself an aviation expert? (expurt more likely).
Do you need to have actual experience in the topic being posted?
Or is it you can just dial up the moral indignation like the last post and pat all your mates on the back?
Some of you blokes need to take stock of what you posted, maybe the people you slag off at are due an apology because of your language?
I made the post I did on page 1 of this thread because I was flying fires the day before in Vic, the conditions were very rough. That's why I bought up the topic of structural failure.
Can only prune regulars comment on topics?
Do you need to have over 1000 posts?
Is it not being employed as a pilot or flown commercially but to have flown privately a posting prerequisite?
Is it just calling yourself an aviation expert? (expurt more likely).
Do you need to have actual experience in the topic being posted?
Or is it you can just dial up the moral indignation like the last post and pat all your mates on the back?
Some of you blokes need to take stock of what you posted, maybe the people you slag off at are due an apology because of your language?
I made the post I did on page 1 of this thread because I was flying fires the day before in Vic, the conditions were very rough. That's why I bought up the topic of structural failure.
Trying to definitively claim why an aircraft crashed using Flight Radar and ADS-B data is like clueless idiots pointing out where VH-MDX rests in the Barrington Tops using google earth images. Just stop.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: canberra
Age: 73
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a clueless idiot who nevertheless likes to dabble in aviation things once in awhile! I have been following this discussion/argument/slanging match with great interest and wonder why no-one has responded to Galerita yet about the possibility of a forced landing at Peak View? Too "outlandlish", if you forgive the horrible pun? Sounds like a reasonable possibility to me, who knows nothing. What about somebody who knows something?
[shortened a bit]
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.
If you provide such a feed, then you get to see all the hidden "blocked" information that you cannot see on flight aware public site. You get to have your own IP address that you can share with others to see all that info.
Now, I happen to be one of those "feeders" and together with other "feeders" we get
to see 'the big picture" and rarely do signals at altitude drop out unless typically
at the extreme end of the range say 200 to 300 NM at 35,000 feet depending on location, height and antenna.
150 miles at 6,000 feet is a no-brainer and odds are that at 6,000 feet ...
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.
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.
If you provide such a feed, then you get to see all the hidden "blocked" information that you cannot see on flight aware public site. You get to have your own IP address that you can share with others to see all that info.
Now, I happen to be one of those "feeders" and together with other "feeders" we get
to see 'the big picture" and rarely do signals at altitude drop out unless typically
at the extreme end of the range say 200 to 300 NM at 35,000 feet depending on location, height and antenna.
150 miles at 6,000 feet is a no-brainer and odds are that at 6,000 feet ...
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.
The earth is not flat. Signals are limited by range, by the curvature of the earth, and surrounding terrain or obstacles.
At 35000' line of sight is about 200 NM, at 6000' 80 NM
Albury and Sydney are considerably further away than 80 miles.
Yes, in some conditions there is tropospheric ducting, refraction of the signal at a temperature inversion, along a ridge of high pressure, and VHF and UHF signals can go further, but you can't expect this all the time.
Thus my TV in southern UK sometimes has auto-tuned French channels in the programme guide, or experienced radio amateurs with the right kit have managed maybe 1000 km at UHF, but bear in mind these are more powerful transmitters, and much more directional aerials, multi-element Yagis, maybe sometimes stacked more than one in an array.
But even so, signal strength diminishes with range, and also more at higher frequencies, so even if someone can anecdotally tell us of an occasional 100 or 200 km for aircraft on 120 or 130 MHz, that doesn't prove the same range at 8 or 9 times the frequency.
The nearby terrain is only just below or above the aircraft. This can block line of sight or may cause multipath interference
Your extra information you claim you have doesn't include anything more about the aircraft systems, contrary to your know-all implications
Overall, the end of the ADS-B (sic, not your repeatedly mistyped version) derived trace is not conclusive about the fate of the aircraft.
It's a huge shame the tragic fate of these brave hard-working people is being trolled by parading ignorance
Last edited by aox; 25th Jan 2020 at 00:15.
Slightly OT but perhaps relevant to the ADS-B discussion but do they (sometimes) turn the transponders off when over the fireground?
Reason for the question/observation was that in early 2019 we had a fire nearby and I watched the 737 and RJ85 come down and work the fires. Now I regularly see aircraft on FR24 and the like at about 6000' but the 737 and lead aircraft came down and the lead was visible at say 10000' but the 737 droped off at 15000'.
In December 2019 we had another fire nearby and the C130 and RJ85 were usually "visible" at about 6000' and above but not below that which is probably topography.
Most of the military aircraft involved in the bushfire recovery don't appear on FR24 but do on the global adsb exchange.
Reason for the question/observation was that in early 2019 we had a fire nearby and I watched the 737 and RJ85 come down and work the fires. Now I regularly see aircraft on FR24 and the like at about 6000' but the 737 and lead aircraft came down and the lead was visible at say 10000' but the 737 droped off at 15000'.
In December 2019 we had another fire nearby and the C130 and RJ85 were usually "visible" at about 6000' and above but not below that which is probably topography.
Most of the military aircraft involved in the bushfire recovery don't appear on FR24 but do on the global adsb exchange.
A good one, if they lit the field on all edges instead of just downwind, so it accelerated by sucking in air from all round, could be going up at well over 10 knots if you could fit a decent turn right in the middle. I saw one in Bedfordshire or Cambridgeshire which really went. They lit the field next to the one I was circling over, it came up like an arm with clenched fist, and in about a minute and a half or two there was a new cumulus to well over the 5000' base, maybe 7000'. I was afraid to go in it, assuming that a 30 knot or so vertical gust might cause some damage, to aircraft or me, or at best very little chance of controlling the glider well.
But that is tiny compared to the energy going into the Australian fires. I'm assuming the cores of strongest lift in some of these forest fires can be a lot stronger and rougher. Can you see well enough to slightly avoid the strongest and most opaque bits, come back when that's died down a bit, or are you trying to deliberately hit them at the worst moment?
I watched some aircraft bombing a fire in the south of France a couple of years ago, but this was actually a fairly modest size. Of course the attempted photos are little more than a speck from a kilometre or so away.
Last edited by aox; 25th Jan 2020 at 11:35.
I apologized to you Cedric. My point is that there are countless family members of firefighters, including air wing, right now hoping that their nearest and dearest is going to come home safe and sound at the end of their shift and some of the stuff here is just utterly tasteless and injurious to those families.
This is an ongoing event, once it’s over the pedants and technical experts, or who represent themselves as such, can have at it for all their worth.
This is an ongoing event, once it’s over the pedants and technical experts, or who represent themselves as such, can have at it for all their worth.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: United States
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agread, As information comes out, it changes the most probable cause. At first there was just ADSB which is disturbing and so far
only a few have commented on in flight stresses. In this accident, the A-DSB record shows
what appears to be severe turbulence stresses followed by what appears to be a break up or a crash.
Then arrived vague hearsay but apparently considered reliable witness information came out that gave
a picture that the C130 followed another aircraft thru a valley in which it
ended up being seen by other witnesses flying very low level.
The higher the water drop height above ground
the less effective the drop becomes.
With four turbine engines, plenty of fuel, its improbable that this accident was a forced landing gone bad.
Now you threw in "what about somebody who knows something".
In this case, the destruction photographed, shows a nasty rate of descent and high forward speed,
its improbable that they were setting up for a forced landing.
only a few have commented on in flight stresses. In this accident, the A-DSB record shows
what appears to be severe turbulence stresses followed by what appears to be a break up or a crash.
Then arrived vague hearsay but apparently considered reliable witness information came out that gave
a picture that the C130 followed another aircraft thru a valley in which it
ended up being seen by other witnesses flying very low level.
The higher the water drop height above ground
the less effective the drop becomes.
With four turbine engines, plenty of fuel, its improbable that this accident was a forced landing gone bad.
Now you threw in "what about somebody who knows something".
In this case, the destruction photographed, shows a nasty rate of descent and high forward speed,
its improbable that they were setting up for a forced landing.
I am a clueless idiot who nevertheless likes to dabble in aviation things once in awhile! I have been following this discussion/argument/slanging match with great interest and wonder why no-one has responded to Galerita yet about the possibility of a forced landing at Peak View? Too "outlandlish", if you forgive the horrible pun? Sounds like a reasonable possibility to me, who knows nothing. What about somebody who knows something?
Originally Posted by agread View Post
I am a clueless idiot who nevertheless likes to dabble in aviation things once in awhile! I have been following this discussion/argument/slanging match with great interest and wonder why no-one has responded to Galerita yet about the possibility of a forced landing at Peak View? Too "outlandlish", if you forgive the horrible pun? Sounds like a reasonable possibility to me, who knows nothing. What about somebody who knows something?
I am a clueless idiot who nevertheless likes to dabble in aviation things once in awhile! I have been following this discussion/argument/slanging match with great interest and wonder why no-one has responded to Galerita yet about the possibility of a forced landing at Peak View? Too "outlandlish", if you forgive the horrible pun? Sounds like a reasonable possibility to me, who knows nothing. What about somebody who knows something?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bodies of hero American firefighters recovered from charred crash site
A couple of minutes of drone footage of the crash site. Not much left of the aircraft. Interesting to note that the remains of two of the engines are seen very close to the resting site of the tail.
A couple of minutes of drone footage of the crash site. Not much left of the aircraft. Interesting to note that the remains of two of the engines are seen very close to the resting site of the tail.
You can see the port wing right where you would expect it to be, adjacent to the forward fuselage remains featuring the words next generation, the other starboard appears to be parallel to that, both where you would expect them to be all things considered. The debris trail does appear to be mostly on the port side which is interesting, but I will leave the surmising to Greg (with whom I had the pleasure to work with last century) and his team.
Press reports state that the 'black box voice recorder" has been recovered and sent to Canberra and that it may be reviewed tomorrow (Sun 25th). The image was released by NSW Police
Last edited by Skillsy; 25th Jan 2020 at 04:43. Reason: add image
You can see the port wing right where you would expect it to be, adjacent to the forward fuselage remains featuring the words next generation, the other starboard appears to be parallel to that, both where you would expect them to be all things considered. The debris trail does appear to be mostly on the port side which is interesting, but I will leave the surmising to Greg (with whom I had the pleasure to work with last century) and his team.