Obviously not GPS jamming
Surely it was obviously not GPS jamming as there would have been dozens of other affected flights?
Inertial navigation drift is a bit worrying - shouldn't routine maintenance pick this up?
An airliner that appeared to crash into the North Sea earlier this week in fact landed safely. Yet multiple flight tracker websites showed it spiralling into the ocean. Experts have explained to The Register what really happened. It began when Reg reader Ross noticed that a flight scheduled to land at Aberdeen on Tuesday 15 …
Inertial navigation drift is a bit worrying - shouldn't routine maintenance pick this up?
Nah, drifting's fine, just don't kerb it too much. So being a tad curious, the aircraft seems to be operated by Jota Group, who do motorsports stuff. So going around in circles is normal, as long as it's roughly on the right track.
But I guess it's one of those things. As long as the pilots know where they are, all is well. If they aren't sure, I guess they can always ask air traffic controllers, or hold a sign up in the window for the nearest Typhoon QRA. Or I guess it's one of those faults one detects when all the other navaids have failed, and it looks like you're set for landing in the North Sea. But I'd have hoped the avionics did some sanity checking so if the various navigation systems had a disagreement, there'd be some sort of warning, either to the pilots, or ground crew. I'd always thought that for an aircraft to be considered airworthy, especially carrying paying passengers, all it's systems were meant to be in order.
I do hope and expect the pilots compare output from different systems, as well as to their dead reckoning.
My dad told stories about that (he was master of a small cargo ship), going from UK to Iceland sometime in the 60es. Radar was broken, strong westerly winds, snow showers, and all they had of navigational info was the direction of a radio beacon in Norway. As they ship was empty, they knew they drifted sideways, so where exactly were they on the line? Then the snow cleared, and 8 miles ahead was Iceland! He used to say "a lot of things go well"
My father went out to the Isle of Barra in a Sadler 25. No GPS, this was early 80s, just chart navigation and tidal charts. They got caught in a fog bank. Taking into account wind, tide etc. they carried on course for Barra and they ended up about 25 yards from the marker buoy they had aimed for.
If I remember correctly the RAF fitted two ex BA VC10 INS systems in each of their Vulcans for the Falklands Black Buck missions as there was no other long range navigation systems available. On the first (according to the book Vulcan 607) they drifted and gave different positions. The problem then was which one was correct? Or were they both out? The target was a VERY small spot in a large ocean, and they were coming in at very low level to avoid radar detection. I believe they split the difference and fortunately (as it was a long way back if they missed) that worked.
About 30 years ago I went to a talk about problems encountered during the Falklands war. The carrier based aircraft used INS type location systems as did the ships themselves. The planes had to be calibrated back at base in the UK which was fine normally as they were intended for a war in Europe. When they went on sorties in the South Atlantic and with poor visibility the drift on their inertial systems meant they had great difficulty finding the carrier. Not good when you are running low on fuel. Apparently the ship board systems could not talk to the planes to enable a reset of the gyros.
The Vulcan used radar for navigation, using a set whose heritage went back to H2S in WW2 on Lancaster bombers. It was pretty good at paintball picture of the ground allowing the nav to plot position pretty well.
Obviously not any good over an ocean.
The same radar was used for bomb aiming, using offset navigation. The idea was that, even if the target was jamming the radar obscuring the view of the target, if you could still pick out features elsewhere the bombing “computer” could calculate where it was, where the target was, fly the aircraft on the bombing run and automatically drop the bombs. This worked in the Falklands war.
The problem was that the Vulcan's radar emissions could be tracked long before the aircraft itself (which was flying at low level) so the search radar was off. I met one of the navigators that flew on Black Buck missions. They were briefed to switch radar on when passing over the task force fleet to ID themselves, the logic being that the task force were expecting them and the direction of approach would rule out Argentine aircraft. But as the Vulcan approached their warning systems lit up with numerous fire control radars from the fleet and as the navy had a long-established reputation from WW2 to shoot first and ask afterwards, the crew turned their own radar off and hoped they didn't collide with the superstructure of a ship. They had to make landfall at a precise location, hence the need for INS kit as they could only use their own radar NBC system for the actual bomb run.
Later BB mission had Vulcan armed with Shrike (?) missiles to knock out Argentine defence radars and lurked around off the Falklands wanting to be painted by them as Shrike homed in on their emissions.
I took a trip on an RAF VC10 to and from Brize Norton and Washington DC sometime around 1990. The co-pilot showed us the INS (ring laser gyroscope-based, IIRC) and said that the usual drift they experienced was measured in a few metres rather than miles after the journey Brize-Washington-Central America and back. There was a very precisely located point on the apron at Brize where the INS would be set before each mission, and checked on return.
I once asked about the 747's inertial guidance and the pilot said that it would drift about a mile after travelling across the Atlantic. They also had 3 inertial guidance units just to be sure. This was over 25 years ago.
Three were required because accurate navigation was a vital part of crossing an ocean. If you’re planning on landing with no more than half an hour extra fuel then it’s no good if you take a 31 minute detour thanks to wonky navigation.
INS/IRS do drift, which is why modern aircraft don't rely on them entirely. The INS/IRS positions are compared regularly with DME/GPS fixing (and radar fixes on older military aircraft) to compute an accurate position. using Kalmann filtering techniques.
Something like a 146/V-bomber would have been much more prone to errors, since the computation was minimal/non-existent.
Back in those days anything going over the USSR was treated as fair game by the USSR. These were considerably more paranoid times.
There were no commercial air routes over Warsaw Pact countries at all for Western aircraft, which made getting to Japan from Europe a very long flight indeed.
It’s interesting to see how it works these days. Russia hasn’t signed up to the freedom of navigation treaties. This means individual airlines have to negotiate directly with the Russian government for permission to fly over Russian territory. And they charge a lot of money. They make a lot of profit from flights between Europe and the Far East.
Nowadays incompetency seems to be a major contributor to airliner shoot downs.
There is always the possibility that KAL007, was deliberately sent to excite the USSR's radar and check what happened when a civilian airliner 'accidentally' intruded into USSR airspace near Sakhalin Island. The whole thing was eavesdropped by US AWACS, right up to the firing of the missile which killed all on board.
Another Korean Airlines plane was shot at by Soviet Migs when allegedly 'flying over the North Pole navigating by magnetic compass' it ended up over Murmansk. The pilot only landed after the cabin was pierced by several bullets from the Migs killing a couple of the passengers.
It will not surprise you to know that I have never flown Korean Airlines.
Oh, they're aware.
Problem is, they think that websites for CNN, the New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, the "news" side (as opposed to the "opinion/entertainment" side) of Fox News, The Register, and any number of traditional news sources are the sketchy ones.
"Canadian open-source intelligence bod Steffan Watkins, whose recent flight tracking research revealed that US intelligence-gathering aircraft were switching transponder codes to pose as benign Malaysian flights off the coast of China,"
I live at 8,000 feet in the VietNam Central Highlands on the Laos border where we have a laser test range.
Steffan Watkins observations might well explain misleading RF communications emanating from US marked aircraft that depart from Singapore's Changi Airport, then travel at low levels across to VN and then are forced to climb as they come over the Highlands.
The paucity of flights at this time make any strange flight paths subject to scrutiny.
Indeed. And do your very best to try and forget, or not forget and realise if/when you think you can handle such a situation, nothing on the internet is precisely accurate, but everything in reality only need to be close enough as to make no difference.
Yesterday, there was a Spitfire flight over hospitals in Scotland, to thank the NHS. I was watching it on flightradar24 and it simply disappeared over Fife. Fortunately, it seems to have only been the flight tracker, with the plane completing the flight.
The best Requiring Sargent for Scottish independence is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson
When Mayor of London, A B de P Johnson likened the GB economy to a Ryvita* with a blob of jam on London. He claimed the way to get more jam for the rest of the Ryvita* was not to spread it out, but to put even more jam on London so that it it sort of spread out of its own accord. I remember thinking that a more persuasive argument for Scottish independence would be hard to find.
*Other inedibly dry comestibles are, I believe, available.
There are two plausible theories for this article.
1) Intricately detailed "blind them with science" cover up for alien kidnapping
2) We are a bunch of socially awkward dorks reading interesting dork-bork
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, my wife would probably bet on #2!
The Fine Article mentions: <<Open-source bod Watkins sighed: "All of these systems were developed with the idea everyone wanted everyone else to have accurate data, for safety, and there are few checks and balances in place to validate the authenticity of the data.">>
Watkins may have been addressing GPS Spoofing, but the story here seems the opposite. The flight data was authentic, i.e. coming from the aircraft in question, but not accurate, as some of the aircraft systems did not know where they were to a shockingly large degree. (And the first Redmond-trained minion who says "They were in an aeroplane" gets to repeat the feather-versus-anvil speed of gravity test from 20 kilometres AGL. Their choice of which to hold on the way down in lieu of parachute.)
Qinetic West Freugh?
I went for a job interview at Serco Kyle of Lochalsh, early nineties. It soon became Qinetic to further enrich Tories. It was to test missiles and torpedoes on Benbecula, 10 weeks on and 7 weeks off.
I drove into the factory in my girlfriend's Fiat Panda which had Greenpeace stickers on it, causing quite a commotion among the security guards. They could have just put the guard rail down.
The thrust of my interview was why I had the terrorist group Greenpeace stickers on my car. I explained it wasn't my car or stickers, and anyway Greenpeace were hardly terrorists compared to the French government who had just sunk their Rainbow Warrior ship in New Zealand.
To their credit they offered me the job. To my credit I refused it.
I wouldn't trust Serco or Qinetic employees with a long dirty pole.
FlightAware have a little bit more of the track than FlightRadar, including it turning round very sharply at the point FlightRadar ends
They also list an "arrival" time, roughly at the end of the track, but I'm not sure how they work out something arrived
"Tue 06:09:13 PM Arrival () @ Tuesday 06:09:13 PM CEST"
"Canadian open-source intelligence bod Steffan Watkins, whose recent flight tracking research revealed that US intelligence-gathering aircraft were switching transponder codes to pose as benign Malaysian flights off the coast of China"
What could possibly go wrong?!
I realise that Inertial Navigation Systems do drift a bit, but 70 miles in such a short space of time does seem like a fault. I would have expected INS drift to occur for the whole of the flight incrementally, not suddenly 90 degrees change of direction. When they were first introduced, BAe put one of their INS in a car and mapped the roads of Scotland, quite accurately, according to the BBC's Tomorrow's World program.
I worked on the BAe 146 aircraft when I had a vacation job at Hatfield in 1978, I even had the commemorative (kipper) tie. I didn't fly in one until a holiday to Bhutan, where it is (or certainly was) the only commercial jet certified to land and take off at Paro , Bhutan's international airport. (Nostalgia, eh, what would we do without it?)