Comments on: New statement re MH370 https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/ Satellites, spectrum and other stuff Tue, 03 Feb 2026 21:36:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ekyap https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-58387 Ekyap Thu, 27 Nov 2014 04:42:05 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-58387 Alex, I would like to clarify certain points for you. We are by this point pretty clear about the difference between Primary and Secondary radar. We are left in the dark as to the extent of civilian ATC primary and secondary radar coverage on the track for MH 370. The mechanics of military air defence radar and physics of its coverage are pretty straightforward. a. We are not talking about a small fighter jet at low level but rather a fat consistent radar target at height,. The Malaysian IADS AD radars are all situated on high hills for better coverage and to look down and search for low flying aircraft. The sites in Penang , Pahang and Gong Kedak are pretty clear on that. Thus seeing a high flying large target at its max instrumented range would not be technically difficult without any issues of clutter and or a radar horizon. b. Normal instrumented range for a 3D Phased array radar would be between 420km to 470km depending on type and manufacturer, However max range as listed would be within normal working capability for a large target at height so 440km 450km no issue. c. The Military AD radar reads, interrogates and presents the civilian transponder codes to the operators. It has to by virtue of its job. It has to identify and sort every blip. Can you imagine a Military AD radar which has nothing but a morass of unidentified tracks on screen because it does not read the civilian transponders ? d. The time of the flight was well LOW peak for ATC and Mil radar, It was not as busy track wise on both military and civilian screens so all in all a low work load on a quiet nite. e. The question as you put it is WHAT did Gong Kedak see ? The absence of any information from Gong Kedak is surprising and all information thus far has come out of the track detected by RMAF butterworth. Alex,

I would like to clarify certain points for you. We are by this point pretty clear about the difference between Primary and Secondary radar. We are left in the dark as to the extent of civilian ATC primary and secondary radar coverage on the track for MH 370.

The mechanics of military air defence radar and physics of its coverage are pretty straightforward.

a. We are not talking about a small fighter jet at low level but rather a fat consistent radar target at height,. The Malaysian IADS AD radars are all situated on high hills for better coverage and to look down and search for low flying aircraft. The sites in Penang , Pahang and Gong Kedak are pretty clear on that. Thus seeing a high flying large target at its max instrumented range would not be technically difficult without any issues of clutter and or a radar horizon.

b. Normal instrumented range for a 3D Phased array radar would be between 420km to 470km depending on type and manufacturer, However max range as listed would be within normal working capability for a large target at height so 440km 450km no issue.

c. The Military AD radar reads, interrogates and presents the civilian transponder codes to the operators. It has to by virtue of its job. It has to identify and sort every blip. Can you imagine a Military AD radar which has nothing but a morass of unidentified tracks on screen because it does not read the civilian transponders ?

d. The time of the flight was well LOW peak for ATC and Mil radar, It was not as busy track wise on both military and civilian screens so all in all a low work load on a quiet nite.

e. The question as you put it is WHAT did Gong Kedak see ? The absence of any information from Gong Kedak is surprising and all information thus far has come out of the track detected by RMAF butterworth.

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45374 Alex Siew Thu, 04 Sep 2014 03:21:47 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45374 Observation No 10: The ratio of BTO to BFO for the pings at 18:27, 21.41, 22.41 and 00.11 UTC all works out to around 71. These are the pings which were not affected by the eclipse. Observation No 10: The ratio of BTO to BFO for the pings at 18:27, 21.41, 22.41 and 00.11 UTC all works out to around 71. These are the pings which were not affected by the eclipse.

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45373 Alex Siew Thu, 04 Sep 2014 03:17:58 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45373 Observation No 9: The respective graphs for the BFO, BTO, the satellite velocity and the satellite movement in the Z axis, in respect of the pings, all have the same shape, like a 'tick', with all 4 graphs showing a dip or bottom for the 1941 UTC ping, which was around the time the satellite was turning from a northwards to a southwards direction ( 1936 UTC ). Observation No 9: The respective graphs for the BFO, BTO, the satellite velocity and the satellite movement in the Z axis, in respect of the pings, all have the same shape, like a ‘tick’, with all 4 graphs showing a dip or bottom for the 1941 UTC ping, which was around the time the satellite was turning from a northwards to a southwards direction ( 1936 UTC ).

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45156 Alex Siew Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:21:02 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45156 Observation no 8: The BFO for the later pings, reverse engineered, translated into aircraft velocities way above the maximum speed of a B777. See Gysbreght recently, and VictorI and airlandseaman back in April. Observation no 8: The BFO for the later pings, reverse engineered, translated into aircraft velocities way above the maximum speed of a B777. See Gysbreght recently, and VictorI and airlandseaman back in April.

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45154 Alex Siew Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:15:18 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45154 Observation no 7: If satellite velocity is assumed to be constant, the BFO and BTO data is consistent with a flight path back to KL. See comments by Byan and others. Observation no 7: If satellite velocity is assumed to be constant, the BFO and BTO data is consistent with a flight path back to KL. See comments by Byan and others.

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45153 Alex Siew Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:09:50 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45153 Observation No 6: 1 km in movement of the satellite on the Z axis for the later pings (ie those not affected by the eclipse) = 8 plus microseconds in BTO. Also the distance traveled by the satellite is half of the distance between the ping radius, for such pings. Observation No 6: 1 km in movement of the satellite on the Z axis for the later pings (ie those not affected by the eclipse) = 8 plus microseconds in BTO. Also the distance traveled by the satellite is half of the distance between the ping radius, for such pings.

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45148 Alex Siew Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:01:19 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45148 Observation No 5: BFO (for the pings only, not the transmissions at 1707 UTC and prior) = satellite velocity in knots plus fixed offset of approximately 90. Observation No 5: BFO (for the pings only, not the transmissions at 1707 UTC and prior) = satellite velocity in knots plus fixed offset of approximately 90.

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45147 Alex Siew Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:55:27 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45147 Observation No 4: As per Gysbreght on Duncan's blog on August 25th at 15:27- looking at groundspeed vector as the vector sum of 2 components, Vx parallel to the equator and Vy parallel to the meridian: (a) BFO is almost insensitive to Vx (b) BFO has an approximately linear relationship to Vy (c) sensitivity of BFO to Vy is close to zero when sub satellite point is on the equator and is greatest when the sub satellite point is at the northern or southern extremes of its daily motion. Observation No 4: As per Gysbreght on Duncan’s blog on August 25th at 15:27- looking at groundspeed vector as the vector sum of 2 components, Vx parallel to the equator and Vy parallel to the meridian:

(a) BFO is almost insensitive to Vx

(b) BFO has an approximately linear relationship to Vy

(c) sensitivity of BFO to Vy is close to zero when sub satellite point is on the equator and is greatest when the sub satellite point is at the northern or southern extremes of its daily motion.

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45146 Alex Siew Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:48:41 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45146 Observation No3: The 'point of closest approach to the satellite' happened at around the 1941 UTC ping- see for eg Richard on August 24th at 14:40 on Duncan's blog. The satellite turned southwards at 1936 UTC. Observation No3: The ‘point of closest approach to the satellite’ happened at around the 1941 UTC ping- see for eg Richard on August 24th at 14:40 on Duncan’s blog.

The satellite turned southwards at 1936 UTC.

]]> By: Alex Siew https://tmfassociates.com/blog/2014/07/15/new-statement-re-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-45145 Alex Siew Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:33:15 +0000 http://tmfassociates.com/blog/?p=5271#comment-45145 Observation No 2: The best fit for the BFO and BTO data for the southern track from 1941 UTC onwards is on a heading of 180 degrees. The satellite happened to be traveling on such heading from 1936 UTC onwards ie descending southwards. Observation No 2: The best fit for the BFO and BTO data for the southern track from 1941 UTC onwards is on a heading of 180 degrees.

The satellite happened to be traveling on such heading from 1936 UTC onwards ie descending southwards.

]]>