Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A bit close?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A bit close?

    Is this a bit close?:
    http://www.flightradar24.com/2013-12.../51.5,-0.05/12
    At around 10:12, follow the Kuwait Airways B777 and the MEA A330 flights as they line up for Heathrow.
    They appear to be a couple of hundred yards apart and less than 1,000 ft vertically.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Kelvin View Post
    Is this a bit close?:
    http://www.flightradar24.com/2013-12.../51.5,-0.05/12
    At around 10:12, follow the Kuwait Airways B777 and the MEA A330 flights as they line up for Heathrow.
    They appear to be a couple of hundred yards apart and less than 1,000 ft vertically.
    Kelvin,
    Not necessarily if you read the following due to the minimum separation which can be adjusted by ATC depending on the class of airspace and the proximity to the airport.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...fic_control%29

    "Reduced separation

    In certain special cases, controllers may reduce separation below the usually required minima
    ."

    It's not set in concrete for all phases of flight.

    PRM approaches are a classic example here in Australia;

    http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...rm-approaches/

    Also the map can be slightly misleading as regards actual approach track and location of an aircraft in close proximity to the airport due to the upload times of the signals from each aircraft to the receiver thence the map. Therefore what appears a close call may not be.

    You can see from your link that the flightpaths arent smooth and the radar(s) may have seen a slightly different view than what appeared on the map. That's one of the advantages in owning/operating your own receiver. Data is uploaded every second to the receiver from the aircraft but the packets uploaded to FR24 are something larger than this figure (I just did a count and it's approx. 10 seconds- the time displacement between the repositioning of an aircraft on the map). On approach the Kuwaiti aircraft actually does a change of radars (as does the MEA) and this will affect the timing of the display on the map and the aircraft's actual position.

    Regards,
    Gregg
    Last edited by fungus; 2013-12-25, 11:35.
    YSSY2/T-YSSY4 [SBS-1 Basestation w/- SSE-1090 SJ Mk2 Antenna (Thanks Delcomp) ] [Uniden UBCD996T w/- 16 element Wideband Discone VHF/UHF Antenna, and tuned 108MHz-137MHz Airband Antenna] [Trialing a home-brew 1090MHz collinear antenna]

    Comment


    • #3
      fungus, if you had actually looked at the link he posted you would have concluded that KAC102 has offset GPS data broadcasted on ADS-B.

      kelvin this happens quite often with older plane types.

      Two examples on Schiphol:
      http://x264.nl/dump/klm1024-go-aroun...ffset-adsb.jpg
      http://x264.nl/dump/baw428-go-around-2013-10-28-2.jpg

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jarod View Post
        fungus, if you had actually looked at the link he posted you would have concluded that KAC102 has offset GPS data broadcasted on ADS-B.

        kelvin this happens quite often with older plane types.

        Two examples on Schiphol:
        http://x264.nl/dump/klm1024-go-aroun...ffset-adsb.jpg
        http://x264.nl/dump/baw428-go-around-2013-10-28-2.jpg
        Thanks Jarod,

        I did and it was after midnight here in Australia and I still managed to watch the flight paths of both aircraft on replay about 4 times in order to clearly see their individual flightpaths and post the reply with links.

        As you would no doubt have noted from your thorough examination of my post, I'm here in Australia and I am not entirely familiar with the approaches to LHR (whether they were doing PRM's or otherwise at the time and it would be a tad unfair to expect otherwise). The offering of yours is also just as plausible (although not always the case) but we dont need that sort of rubbishing of blokes attempting to do their best to answer a guy's querie. The information I posted is just as valid. I simply read it a little differently to you (others may look at it differently again), and as far as I'm concerned we're all entitled to have an opinion, and express it without the ridicule. I could have kept on ad nauseum about different types of aircraft etc but needed sleep and I'm sure others have useful information to add, they just need to do it in the correct manner as mercifully most generally do. You should join them.

        There's plenty of room for us all to contribute on here without rubbishing others for doing so simply because you see it differently.

        In case you missed it, I actually made reference to his link and how the aircraft appeared on the map.

        Regards,
        Gregg

        P.S. Keep your acid tongue in your head please. It's entirely unnecessary here on the forum. I didnt realise you were here last night looking over my shoulder
        .

        I didnt think I actually did too badly for a bloke with a disability, what do you reckon, eh Jarod? That's primarily thanks to the pain meds. Thanks for the smack in the face, duly noted. Merry Christmas to you too.
        Last edited by fungus; 2013-12-26, 03:33.
        YSSY2/T-YSSY4 [SBS-1 Basestation w/- SSE-1090 SJ Mk2 Antenna (Thanks Delcomp) ] [Uniden UBCD996T w/- 16 element Wideband Discone VHF/UHF Antenna, and tuned 108MHz-137MHz Airband Antenna] [Trialing a home-brew 1090MHz collinear antenna]

        Comment


        • #5
          Now then chaps! Let's keep it nice. This is the season of goodwill to all men etc!
          Anyway, it would appear both of you may have been correct to one degree or another.
          I have looked at the tracks of both aircraft on Heathrow Webtrak and find that both aircraft landed on the same runway (27L) and there was approximately 5 miles between the Kuwait flight and the following MEA plane, along with plenty of vertical separation.
          I believe Webtrak takes data directly from Heathrow radar. (Could be wrong).
          Cheers and all the best

          Comment


          • #6
            Emotions, sorry i don't do those.
            Take my apology if you require it.

            I shall however offer not to participate anymore. Except when other users and myself are right and ignored as in the premium login case.
            That was solved and now this is too.

            Later.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's the 767 that's at fault here... 767's are notorious for drifting GPS data. And don't worry they don't use the same GPS to navigate!

              They use reliable VOR and NDB's radio navigation.



              Originally posted by Jarod View Post
              fungus, if you had actually looked at the link he posted you would have concluded that KAC102 has offset GPS data broadcasted on ADS-B.

              kelvin this happens quite often with older plane types.

              Two examples on Schiphol:
              http://x264.nl/dump/klm1024-go-aroun...ffset-adsb.jpg
              http://x264.nl/dump/baw428-go-around-2013-10-28-2.jpg
              www.ADS-B.ca

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jarod View Post
                Emotions, sorry i don't do those.
                Take my apology if you require it.

                I shall however offer not to participate anymore. Except when other users and myself are right and ignored as in the premium login case.
                That was solved and now this is too.

                Later.
                Thanks Jarod for the 'heartfelt' apology and your disdain is utterly digusting. As I said there is room for all of us to express an opinion on this forum, it would be nice though if it were done in a decent manner. Nobody was 'ignoring' you, you were the one ridiculing my response. Please note that in my response I acknowledged that your explanation was quite plausible. It must be extremely difficult carrying that huge chip around on your shoulder.

                I have to climb Mt. Everest every day in order to participate on this website and I'm not prepared to tolerate that sort of abuse. From you or anyone. I cant help it if you have no emotional capacity for anyone other than yourself.
                I also cant help it if you have a bee in your bonnet about your premium login situation, however if you'd been on the chat when I were on there, I'd have been one of those guys busting his nuts to help you out. We're not all bad guys. But, whack me across the chops and you're going to get bit.

                Regards,
                Gregg
                Last edited by fungus; 2013-12-27, 05:39.
                YSSY2/T-YSSY4 [SBS-1 Basestation w/- SSE-1090 SJ Mk2 Antenna (Thanks Delcomp) ] [Uniden UBCD996T w/- 16 element Wideband Discone VHF/UHF Antenna, and tuned 108MHz-137MHz Airband Antenna] [Trialing a home-brew 1090MHz collinear antenna]

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kelvin View Post
                  Now then chaps! Let's keep it nice. This is the season of goodwill to all men etc!
                  Anyway, it would appear both of you may have been correct to one degree or another.
                  I have looked at the tracks of both aircraft on Heathrow Webtrak and find that both aircraft landed on the same runway (27L) and there was approximately 5 miles between the Kuwait flight and the following MEA plane, along with plenty of vertical separation.
                  I believe Webtrak takes data directly from Heathrow radar. (Could be wrong).
                  Cheers and all the best
                  Thanks Kelvin,
                  You noticed something I think Jarod missed. There is always more than one point of view and there can be more than one explanation. I would have liked to have done that (kept it nice) but copped a smack across the chops for my trouble in trying to help you out. You are correct, Webtrack is taken straight from the ATC surveillance radar (Primary as far as I can recollect) and here in Australia is on a 40 minute delay. This is also why it is limited to the area in the vicinity of the airport due to it being derived from radar data.

                  Regards,
                  Gregg
                  Last edited by fungus; 2013-12-27, 03:37.
                  YSSY2/T-YSSY4 [SBS-1 Basestation w/- SSE-1090 SJ Mk2 Antenna (Thanks Delcomp) ] [Uniden UBCD996T w/- 16 element Wideband Discone VHF/UHF Antenna, and tuned 108MHz-137MHz Airband Antenna] [Trialing a home-brew 1090MHz collinear antenna]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 1090 MHz View Post
                    It's the 767 that's at fault here... 767's are notorious for drifting GPS data. And don't worry they don't use the same GPS to navigate!

                    They use reliable VOR and NDB's radio navigation.
                    You're correct there in what you say about the 767's, although in this case one aircraft is a 777 and the other an A330 (I wont bite you for missing this point) and when an aircraft is on approach, and in close proximity to an airport they are generally vectored onto final by ATC. Yes they do use NDB and VOR radio navigation aids (here in Australia generally the 'lighter' aircraft still use these moreso than the jets) but they also use SID's/STAR's when departing/arriving which can be cancelled by ATC at any time to facilitate spacing of aircraft or pilot's will request track shortening to save some time or fuel. This track shortening is likely what Kelvin experienced in the first place but with the errors we've discussed. Fewer and fewer aircraft are using the old land-based nav aids these days.

                    Gees it's nice to be able to have a convivial exchange of information, rather than a shit-fight.

                    Regards,
                    Gregg
                    Last edited by fungus; 2013-12-27, 03:38.
                    YSSY2/T-YSSY4 [SBS-1 Basestation w/- SSE-1090 SJ Mk2 Antenna (Thanks Delcomp) ] [Uniden UBCD996T w/- 16 element Wideband Discone VHF/UHF Antenna, and tuned 108MHz-137MHz Airband Antenna] [Trialing a home-brew 1090MHz collinear antenna]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by fungus View Post
                      You're correct there in what you say about the 767's, although in this case one aircraft is a 777 and the other an A330 (I wont bite you for missing this point)
                      I was referring to Jarod's post... which shows a 767.

                      http://x264.nl/dump/baw428-go-around-2013-10-28-2.jpg
                      www.ADS-B.ca

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 1090 MHz View Post
                        I was referring to Jarod's post... which shows a 767.

                        http://x264.nl/dump/baw428-go-around-2013-10-28-2.jpg
                        Oops, my bad

                        Regards,
                        Gregg
                        YSSY2/T-YSSY4 [SBS-1 Basestation w/- SSE-1090 SJ Mk2 Antenna (Thanks Delcomp) ] [Uniden UBCD996T w/- 16 element Wideband Discone VHF/UHF Antenna, and tuned 108MHz-137MHz Airband Antenna] [Trialing a home-brew 1090MHz collinear antenna]

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X