Multilateration (MLat) does not improve the accuracy of airborne ADS-B.

This is laughable at best and the true definition of an armchair expert. How you could possibly know what caused this and somehow feel that it is your public duty to inform others is incomprehensible.

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.

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.

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.

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?

ACMS,
I stand corrected. You mentioned "Flightradar24" which is very similar to Flight Aware

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?

If you can't answer that question yourself then you probably won't get it. It is unedifying because it is often thoughtless and disrespectful in the absence of facts. Many of us have thoughts or theories and speculate - privately. There is no reason other than a deeply self-centred one to publicly state your opinions and assumptions before the proper authorities have even had a chance to inform relatives. Unedifying. That is why most professional aviators will be circumspect in their immediate commentary. Timing is also important - most of us will let the dust settle, wait for some initial report of the facts and then discuss. It's not difficult, just be patient.

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.

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.

We aren’t saying an in flight breakup isn’t the cause but the wreckage isn’t even cold yet and we are already saying what has happened based on supposed ADS-B data on the internet!!

Have some respect for the dead will ya.

Yep. Not making a decision about global firefighting operations based off your analysis of some ADSB data and a google search of an aircraft rego history makes others guilty of wanting to compromise aviation safety.

Imagine actually being this arrogant.

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.

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

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.

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.

LOL, the ADSB does not show the aircraft broke up several thousand feet above the ground, its AMSL, Geometric height is not broadcast via ADSB , and neither is geometric altitude I suspect as that aircraft was most likey not GNSS equipped. One of the facts known it the aircraft was in a bombing run and went into a valley below the height of adjacent terrain following a birddog, only the birddog came out, it was not 1000's of feet above terrain, it was effectively in a faraday cage for Microwave spectrum for land stations.

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!

Thanks Trashie - informative and interesting.
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?"