Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

CRJ down in Sweden

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

CRJ down in Sweden

Old 1st Feb 2016, 14:22
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 238
http://theaviationist.com/2014/08/01...dish-airspace/

There have been many cases of airspace violations in the region during the last few years. Pure speculation but if a state operated stealthy drone was transiting the area it's doubtful it would be talking to anyone other than the operator.
Lets hope this is not the case.
cappt is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 14:29
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
but if a state operated stealthy drone was transiting the area it's doubtful it would be talking to anyone other than the operator.
If state or military operated, the operator would have full access to information on the traffic occupying that airspace.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 16:58
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,624
I'm not that sure about last statement. In fact I think most of the time we, commercial operators, have no clue about these things unless it's in a NOTAM.

CP
CaptainProp is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 17:17
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by CaptainProp View Post
I'm not that sure about last statement. In fact I think most of the time we, commercial operators, have no clue about these things unless it's in a NOTAM.

CP
I think HT was suggesting that any mil UAS operator would know about GAT in the area.

And although I would not normally contribute to thread like this - it not being within my principal areas of expertise - might I offer the following thoughts. I fully support the view that the 'radar' picture provided little information of value and, if RYFQB's suggestion of the likely UAS that could have been flying in the area is correct, the service ceiling of the unmanned vehicles appears to rule out any involvement. And anything larger, whether manned or not, would almost certainly have resulted in a second debris field.

Apologies if applying simple logic is disappointing to any readers.

I'll withdraw now and wait for announcements from the experts charged with investigating the sad event and who, hopefully, have access to authoritative data that may assist understanding of the causal factors.
LookingForAJob is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 17:38
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
It seems unlikely that a drone small enough not to leave noticeable wreckage would have been flown high enough to collide with an aircraft at FL330 (was it?).

Something such as a Global Hawk would leave a lot of wreckage, when that is the type of drone that would have been up that high.
chuks is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 18:01
  #126 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,730
Interesting discussion , regardless of the real cause of this accident ( and I also personally doubt the UAV theory ) :
Hotel Tango :
If state or military operated, the operator would have full access to information on the traffic occupying that airspace.
definitively , however the vast majority of the UAvs accidents is when the operator contact is lost with the UAV a or if the UAV looses GPS contact and start doing things on its own , like descending for instance. And nobody likes to acknowledge they lost a UAV.

Chucks :
It seems unlikely that a drone small enough not to leave noticeable wreckage would have been flown high enough to collide with an aircraft at FL330 (was it?).
Both the US and The Russians have small High Altitude UAVs weighting less that 100K Kgs with a ceiling of 50-60.000ft . I've seen photos but not sure if they were prototypes or operational crafts. So technically possible : yes ,likely in our case , I would say no.

Finally for the conspirationists, this occurred at an FIR boundary, always a nice place to run classified missions. especially a NATO border.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 19:00
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 238
Somebody claims to be leaking inside info over on the AvHerald comments.
cappt is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 19:07
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1,143
Post removed as not relevant. Originally made reference to ATC Watcher's previous post.

Last edited by LookingForAJob; 2nd Feb 2016 at 06:47.
LookingForAJob is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2016, 22:34
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 166
http://theaviationist.com/2014/08/01...dish-airspace/

There have been many cases of airspace violations in the region during the last few years. Pure speculation but if a state operated stealthy drone was transiting the area it's doubtful it would be talking to anyone other than the operator.
Lets hope this is not the case.

"That region" = over sea east of Sweden. But this was not "that region". It was border-close between Norway and Sweden. Good surveillance, both technical equipment and the will to keep control in the area.




Sweden only fly UAV in active restriction areas in Sweden. Highly regulated and taken very seriously by Swedish armed forces.


As for the radar picture linked in my last reply: In my eyes it sure looks like a raw/primary radar trace. I would guess on a military surveillance radar with both primary and secondary targets shown. For reference, the length of the trace is aprox. 1 minute of flight on the picture but it shows (guesstimated) about 100 radar position dots. The SSR-system, I think, don't produce close to that number of measurements in one minute.
But then, Im not in that bussiness, so I might be wrong about that.
AAKEE is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2016, 02:04
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
Interesting discussion , regardless of the real cause of this accident ( and I also personally doubt the UAV theory ) :
Hotel Tango :
definitively , however the vast majority of the UAvs accidents is when the operator contact is lost with the UAV a or if the UAV looses GPS contact and start doing things on its own , like descending for instance. And nobody likes to acknowledge they lost a UAV.

Chucks :

Both the US and The Russians have small High Altitude UAVs weighting less that 100K Kgs with a ceiling of 50-60.000ft . I've seen photos but not sure if they were prototypes or operational crafts. So technically possible : yes ,likely in our case , I would say no.

Finally for the conspirationists, this occurred at an FIR boundary, always a nice place to run classified missions. especially a NATO border.
There is no flying Russian UAV that can fly that high... usually service ceiling of known Russian UAVs is about 3000m-5000m / 10000-15000 ft (roughly). There is one that can presumably fly at 15000m (SKAT), but there is only one full scale version made out of wood for presentations and it was presented in 2007 . I am sure that when the time comes for actually flying it, the real service ceiling will be a lot more realistic.
Sunamer is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2016, 12:35
  #131 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,730
Sunamer :
There is no flying Russian UAV that can fly that high.
Good, then that narrows it down to one

AAKEE :
the length of the trace is approx. 1 minute of flight
If you are correct then, if (and a big if) a collision occurred it would have almost certainly occur been well before that.
The SSR-system, I think, don't produce close to that number of measurements in one minute.
AAKEE what you see here in the photo you published is a synthetic radar picture , like a PC screen. You can put any update rate you want in the " settings " .
SSR returns depends on the number of actual radar heads fed into your system. If you use multi-radar tracking ( most if systems do today) you can have updates every second if you wish. but what you will see will be a calculated mean position, not the actual exact position at a given time . You can also make it a constant moving target , with the software filling the blanks in between returns .
The whole thing is pretty accurate, in the 0,1 NM range, and more than sufficient for ATC purposes .
You can also feed the primary radar returns in that system, but they will be digitized and shown separately from the SRR.

Now I have heard the investigation team has analysed both the CVR which gives a clue apparently,and the FDR, so we should know soon what happened.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2016, 21:21
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 55
Posts: 15
Any Info from Bombardier?

Hi All
It has been a bit to quiet on this one. Cargo no issue as Norwegian Post has received and destructed what mail the crash did not already take care of.

You Regional Drivers, has Bombardier come out with any teck advice or reminders of sop etc. Check wing nut etc.?

And i understand Xfiles are getting back! Drone ,, Please!
Anyway, no news from Bombardier and or MOT: No teck or structure problem.

I wonder what Murphy is up to this time!
Regards
Cpt B
BluSdUp is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2016, 11:51
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 166
SSR returns depends on the number of actual radar heads fed into your system. If you use multi-radar tracking ( most if systems do today) you can have updates every second if you wish.

@ATC Watcher:
Looks like a lot of hits per second. Most times a XPDR only shows returns about one/second ? This area actually is in the middle of nowhere and Swedish ATC only have coverage at high levels about FL100 and above.
I dont Think there is that many SSR-radars covering the area, counting Swedish and Norwegian together.


Now I have heard the investigation team has analysed both the CVR which gives a clue apparently,and the FDR, so we should know soon what happened.

Yes, they said about one week ago that they got clues from the CVR and was about to analyze the FDR. Preliminay report in a few weeks, i Think the statement was.


For all: I intruded a restricted area yesterday(only by 100 meters in a sharp corner), resulted in UAV couldnt take off due to the Swedish restrictions. Those regulations are kept strict and I think everyone can easy rule out the possibility of a Swedish UAV in that area( disregarding the fact that they cant even reach FL330). Together with what we know from other incidents in the area I think we also know that the primary radar systems in the area are quite good, making the UAV-rumor less probable.
AAKEE is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2016, 13:53
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 999
I dont Think there is that many SSR-radars covering the area, counting Swedish and Norwegian together.
Wrong

The NATO recognised air picture takes feeds from both civ and MIL radar sites. (The screenshot is from that system) I cannot comment on here about the MIL feeds, but I can comment that of the Avinor (Norwegian ANSP) radar sites, at least five SSR/MSSR sites would cover the area at cruise FL, and 3 would cover it down to FL100 or lower. Let´s just say that Norwegian controllers have had way better radar coverage in northern Sweden for the last 25 years than the civ controllers in Sweden.

On that you can add X number of AD radars.
M609 is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2016, 14:20
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 516
Led by the nose

The amount of white noise and conspiracy type theories appearing on these forums is becoming not just annoying. One 'Perhaps ... Can anyone shed any light' comment generates yards of piffle. People who know the aircraft and the environment don't really get a word in edge ways.

Perhaps this is what the "new owners" want. Forums with a professional tag attached to feed tabloid hacks with their next headline ending in a question mark.

The credibility of prune is ... Frankly ... Going to the dogs.
Teddy Robinson is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2016, 15:26
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Tourist is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2016, 15:32
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
The credibility of prune is ... Frankly ... Going to the dogs.
You're about 5 years too late, but in the last few months it really seems to have become a 'spotters' forum.
Then again, this thread is by far not the worst example of that - there do seemt o be some good posts in here.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2016, 18:13
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 169
I agree Nemrytter, I particularly appreciate the comments from people with knowledge of the aircraft type and the locale. Without this thread I wouldn't know that the CVR and FDR were recovered and read. I greatly appreciate updates like that.
PrivtPilotRadarTech is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2016, 18:40
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: About to move
Posts: 36
Three things cannot be long hidden:

the sun, the moon and the truth.

(Buddha)
Slow and curious is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2016, 19:58
  #140 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,730
Don't be so negative, some people are at least learning how a radar system works .
ATC Watcher is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.