MH370 and military primary radar.
Thread Starter
MH370 and military primary radar.
Please excuse a non military type on your forum, but I have a question to ask, and the thread is just too insane over there on Rumours&News.
If MH370 did in fact turn back and overfly the Malaysian peninsular into the Indian Ocean, transponder off, is it conceivable they were not seen by the Malaysian Air Force, or other military radar?
I realise air defence is a sensitive matter, but what is the opinion here?
If MH370 did in fact turn back and overfly the Malaysian peninsular into the Indian Ocean, transponder off, is it conceivable they were not seen by the Malaysian Air Force, or other military radar?
I realise air defence is a sensitive matter, but what is the opinion here?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 777 is a big lump of tin, any civil or miltary radar would have seen it. All the transponder does is identify the blip. As usual with cases of this sort for people with an aviation background listening to the idiots on the news is painful.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar is radar at the end of the day, doesn't matter whether it's mil or civvy, same as dynamite, both versions go bang. I'm not sure what you're driving at when you say 'is it possible that it wasn't detected?' If it was in radar range then yes it would be detected unless it had some Klingon cloaking device. But if you are in the business then you already know that surely.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar is radar at the end of the day
But I stopped being a Radar Fitter in 1965 and things might have changed since then
The most useful info appears to be in this Reuters article.
Exclusive: Radar data suggests missing Malaysia plane deliberately flown way off course - sources | Reuters
This Time of India report is also relevant
Radar suggests missing Malaysian jet changed its course more than once - The Times of India
The relevant Malaysian military radar sites appear to be at Kota Bharu and Butterworth.
MH 370 is reported now to have been routing between named waypoints. Your most likely options are:
1) it was detected on military radar, but not deemed a threat due to its routing, and therefore not investigated.
2) it was detected, deemed a threat but not identified.
3) it was not detected, or not detected often enough to generate a reliable track
All of the reasons for the above would make the Malaysian authorities look bad. Questions might include:
What was the system serviceability and effective coverage?
Was this an operator or command cock-up?
Do they co-ordinate with the civilians, including flight plans?
Do their systems include transponder codes?
Do they have an effective Quick Reaction Alert?
I suspect the details are coming out now because they are reviewing the radar recordings but only now realise what they need to look for.
My best guess is that they routinely ignore civilian traffic routing between named waypoints. They will absolutely not wish to admit this, especially if it is known that they do so, as whoever was flying the jet may have planned for this.
Exclusive: Radar data suggests missing Malaysia plane deliberately flown way off course - sources | Reuters
This Time of India report is also relevant
Radar suggests missing Malaysian jet changed its course more than once - The Times of India
The relevant Malaysian military radar sites appear to be at Kota Bharu and Butterworth.
MH 370 is reported now to have been routing between named waypoints. Your most likely options are:
1) it was detected on military radar, but not deemed a threat due to its routing, and therefore not investigated.
2) it was detected, deemed a threat but not identified.
3) it was not detected, or not detected often enough to generate a reliable track
All of the reasons for the above would make the Malaysian authorities look bad. Questions might include:
What was the system serviceability and effective coverage?
Was this an operator or command cock-up?
Do they co-ordinate with the civilians, including flight plans?
Do their systems include transponder codes?
Do they have an effective Quick Reaction Alert?
I suspect the details are coming out now because they are reviewing the radar recordings but only now realise what they need to look for.
My best guess is that they routinely ignore civilian traffic routing between named waypoints. They will absolutely not wish to admit this, especially if it is known that they do so, as whoever was flying the jet may have planned for this.
Thread Starter
Radar is radar at the end of the day, doesn't matter whether it's mil or civvy, same as dynamite, both versions go bang. I'm not sure what you're driving at when you say 'is it possible that it wasn't detected?' If it was in radar range then yes it would be detected unless it had some Klingon cloaking device. But if you are in the business then you already know that surely.
Military air defence radars however.... That is what I am getting at.
Is it possible the Air-force sometimes is asleep, or have lost the tapes? Was the only radar switched off and they were all down the local brothel? I have no idea as to the extent of Malaysia's air defence capabilities. I thought someone here might know.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does apprear that the civilians depend much more on transponder information than the military.
I agree with Fox, there's some serious backpedalling going on.
Edit: Sorry LL, just caught your post. ATC do show non transponding traffic, although I can only speak for certain about the UK and Western Europe. Why would they not want to show non transponding traffic? If anything they are going to be the bigger proximity threat precisely because you don't know their height, where they are heading etc. Go flying any time in the UK and you will have ATC warning you about 'Unidentified traffic, no height information.'
Just found this: David Learmount at FlightGlobal reckons it was a cock-up by the Malaysian military also:
MH370: Malaysia's military failed in their duty says expert | Plane Talking
Worth noting that, at that time of night, there is no Swiss QRA (they start at 6am I believe - easy life
)
MH370: Malaysia's military failed in their duty says expert | Plane Talking
Worth noting that, at that time of night, there is no Swiss QRA (they start at 6am I believe - easy life
)
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 16th Mar 2014 at 16:29.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many air traffic systems around the world, including some in the UK, do not show non-squawking aircraft to the controller. This is particularly true for civilian controllers monitoring the upper air, who may only be presented with symbology derived from secondary surveillance systems, not even 'raw' secondary returns.
Sun.
Sun.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many air traffic systems around the world, including some in the UK, do not show non-squawking aircraft to the controller. This is particularly true for civilian controllers monitoring the upper air, who may only be presented with symbology derived from secondary surveillance systems, not even 'raw' secondary returns.
Can't say I've ever flown in an area where only transponding traffic was shown otherwise I wouldn't get non transponding traffic as conflicts! However, I rarely venture into the oxygen starved areas of the airspace.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Wrong question.
Would it have been tracked from shortly after take-off until it left radar cover - yes. It would have been identified as a friendly based on it's SSR squawk and associated flight plan and had a friendly track label associated with it which would have stayed with it based on primary radar when the SSR was turned off.
Would the fact that the SSR was turned off and the aircraft then turned back have caused an alert? Perhaps. It was already identified as friendly and the turn back could have been assumed to be related to an aircraft electrical problem; however a prolonged deviation from the flight plan route should have triggered at least a conversation with the local ATC centre as to the problem and intentions.
Once over land it probably entered a no-track area (spurious plots associated with ground clutter and local movements are a nuisance) and the track label would have been automatically dropped. From that point it would have just been another assumed friendly overland track.
Would it have been tracked from shortly after take-off until it left radar cover - yes. It would have been identified as a friendly based on it's SSR squawk and associated flight plan and had a friendly track label associated with it which would have stayed with it based on primary radar when the SSR was turned off.
Would the fact that the SSR was turned off and the aircraft then turned back have caused an alert? Perhaps. It was already identified as friendly and the turn back could have been assumed to be related to an aircraft electrical problem; however a prolonged deviation from the flight plan route should have triggered at least a conversation with the local ATC centre as to the problem and intentions.
Once over land it probably entered a no-track area (spurious plots associated with ground clutter and local movements are a nuisance) and the track label would have been automatically dropped. From that point it would have just been another assumed friendly overland track.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
When I was controlling (military) in the UK Upoer Airpace (above FL245) it was a mandatory control environment. So everyone there was being controlled by someone. Ergo, anything below 245 was just screen clutter, and thus on the T-82 radar we could operate in "Beam 6" and thus filter out all the medium and lower level stuff.
Drop below 245, and we would operate in "All Beams" to ensure we saw any possible conflicts. Then, if needed, we would use the height finder to determine the height if the conflict ... 5.000 FT vertical separation being required.
Any SSR data was a bonus, allowing coordination with the relevant controlling agency (if showing).
Drop below 245, and we would operate in "All Beams" to ensure we saw any possible conflicts. Then, if needed, we would use the height finder to determine the height if the conflict ... 5.000 FT vertical separation being required.
Any SSR data was a bonus, allowing coordination with the relevant controlling agency (if showing).
Yup, I agree, civvies tend to use SSR-only to declutter their picture.
I would hope the civil commercial aviation world takes a long hard look at itself after this. I would hope they ask the following:
1. Why is there an over reliance on SSR and not primary RADAR?
2. Why isn't there a procedure for contacting the aircraft when they don't check in on frequency?
3. When there is no contact then why didn't the air traffic service start to look with primary? The average airliner does around 8 miles a minute - so no contact after 5 minutes then start looking out by 50 miles!
4. Is it ETOPS safe or should we have more crew and engines on a single aircraft?
5. Is the use of an aircraft slide really sufficient as a life-raft following ditching?
LJ
I would hope the civil commercial aviation world takes a long hard look at itself after this. I would hope they ask the following:
1. Why is there an over reliance on SSR and not primary RADAR?
2. Why isn't there a procedure for contacting the aircraft when they don't check in on frequency?
3. When there is no contact then why didn't the air traffic service start to look with primary? The average airliner does around 8 miles a minute - so no contact after 5 minutes then start looking out by 50 miles!
4. Is it ETOPS safe or should we have more crew and engines on a single aircraft?
5. Is the use of an aircraft slide really sufficient as a life-raft following ditching?
LJ
I know it is fashionable on this forum to rubbish David Learmount and anything he says, but I have to say I pretty well agree with what he is saying about this. Everything points to a huge cock-up on the part of the RMAF radar, which their authorities have been covering up because of this inevitable "face" thing. If I were a Malaysian taxpayer I'd be asking what the heck is the use of operating highly expensive Su 30s, Mig 29s and F18s if unidentified aircraft can fly unchallenged across the country's airspace?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, I agree, civvies tend to use SSR-only to declutter their picture
Thread Starter
ORAC, Am I correct in thinking that you believe it is possible that it was not tracked, - or rather, it is possible that it would not have raised any military interest?
And I presume the radar data is recorded and preserved, so would it not have been reviewed within hours?
And what would be the military interest when the now unidentified return appears from the overland clutter when the aircraft coasts out into the Indian Ocean?
And I presume the radar data is recorded and preserved, so would it not have been reviewed within hours?
And what would be the military interest when the now unidentified return appears from the overland clutter when the aircraft coasts out into the Indian Ocean?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
As a generality I would say that reliance on SSR data since the 70s, by ATC certainly, has diminished the ability to work with minimal data. Think Word Processor VS. Pen, email VS. Letter.
I've had numerous situations when handing over aircraft to another Mil ATCO to hear bleats such as "I don't have a flight plan for him" or "I can't see his squawk". All one actually needs is a primary return, in the right location on tne right heading, for identification from another controller. Then just "Take 5" or coordinate - it's not that difficult.
Sadly, automation now seems to require innumerable additional bells and whistles to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.
[/rant]
I've had numerous situations when handing over aircraft to another Mil ATCO to hear bleats such as "I don't have a flight plan for him" or "I can't see his squawk". All one actually needs is a primary return, in the right location on tne right heading, for identification from another controller. Then just "Take 5" or coordinate - it's not that difficult.
Sadly, automation now seems to require innumerable additional bells and whistles to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic.
[/rant]
I read elsewhere that the Indian Navy had turned off their primary radar, which is why they had no trace. Apparently too expensive to run their radar permanently at times when there is no threat. Possibly also the RMAF had their primary radar switched off.