Calgary International Airport II

[Canadian74]

How realistic is that YYC will break the 15 million mark in 2014?
Would need 5% growth.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

How realistic is that YYC will break the 15 million mark in 2014?
Would need 5% growth.

Impossible, the final tally will come in at roughly 14,989,210 but that's just a guess.

Originally Posted by Cage

The article quotes coldest ever February as -24.5C average for Feb 1936. At these temps even AC would be running 77Ws to Tuffy's front door in CUN.

Only because if it truly were -24.5C in YYC, that would mean it would be -45C in YEG and 2/3's of those 77W's loads would originate from here.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Only because if it truly were -24.5C in YYC, that would mean it would be -45C in YEG and 2/3's of those 77W's loads would originate from here.

No they wouldn't because AC hates YEG.

It is known.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

How realistic is that YYC will break the 15 million mark in 2014?
Would need 5% growth.

If present market forces stay consistent (meaning no very large spike in price oil price combined with a large drop in Canadian dollar) it is entirely reasonable to expect more than 5% traffic growth for 2014. We did 6% last year with similar circumstances. Once Air Canada releases the AC rouge routes for winter 2014 there will be a much better position to comment on whether the 15 million mark will be a stretch goal or table steak goal.

[cyeg66]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

No they wouldn't because AC hates YEG.

It is known.

Touché.

[cyeg66]

ACA 100 flt YVR-YYC showing B77W today. Not your typical a/c substitute... Coincides well with a later European flight departure time but I highly doubt it... (?)

[FormerWingTipper]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

ACA 100 flt YVR-YYC showing B77W today. Not your typical a/c substitute... Coincides well with a later European flight departure time but I highly doubt it... (?)

The original routing is:
AC100/07MARYVRYYZ
It diverted to YYC due to a medical emergency.

[Bokimon]

Quick question as I am too lazy to put this up on airliners.net due to excessive armchair CEO's simulating this event on their FSX who could wildly misinterpret like what the media is doing.

Can anybody expand on the topic of turning off the transponder during flight or completely disabling it. We know that when pilots are not on the runway they turn off the transponder so to stop transmitting the planes data to the radar stations. That way ATC screens don't pick up a pattern of airliner lineup clusters in extreme minimum spacings haha..You folks would get a heart attack.

RE:MH370
What if this event took place in the air? Radar could still pick it up as an UFO I believe but if coverage is spotty, (I heard this area way up in class A level is a bit weak for contact, infact the flights position report had to be relayed from another plane according to one of the initial reports)
Is it theoretically possible to disable the transponder mid flight and then maneuver the aircraft to a level below radar or remote areas weak in radar coverage to give the impression it vanished without a trace? An intentional event like that if possible would surely be an impressive event. Kidnapping a 777 with 240pax and divert it to some rogue country.

Otherwise maybe i start watching some old episodes of LOST and see if there are any similarities to the events.

Years back there was an anet photo of an MH777 taking off with a fan blade failure where the picture showed the engine debris spewing behind as it climbed out. I wonder if that is the same tail..

[Bigtime]

Bo, that would be the difference between Primary Radar (which uses reflected radio beams to get a targets range and bearing) and Secondary Surveillance Radar (which uses the transponders on board aircraft to send a signal back giving all the extra information).

This is where I think a lot of non-aviation people are getting confused about MH370 "disappearing" from radar. Easy enough to just turn the transponder off and pretty much vanish from the radar screens.

Now if there was primary radar coverage over the Gulf of Thailand it stands to reason if the plane was still intact they would get a nice big hit on it.

So I'm guessing there is no primary radar coverage over that gulf.

Nick and cyeg66, do we only have SSR coverage at YYC? Or do we also have primary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_surveillance_radar

[VIce]

I believe it's possible to turn off a transponder. A pilot suicide not too long ago also involved cutting the breakers for the data and voice recorders before deviating from the planned flight.

But I'm not one to speculate, especially about foul play, until there's some serious data along those lines. I doubt there will be answers any time soon. If the plane is on the bottom of the ocean floor, finding it is a very specialized talent that few Navies possess.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Bo, that would be the difference between Primary Radar (which uses reflected radio beams to get a targets range and bearing) and Secondary Surveillance Radar (which uses the transponders on board aircraft to send a signal back giving all the extra information).

This is where I think a lot of non-aviation people are getting confused about MH370 "disappearing" from radar. Easy enough to just turn the transponder off and pretty much vanish from the radar screens.

Now if there was primary radar coverage over the Gulf of Thailand it stands to reason if the plane was still intact they would get a nice big hit on it.

So I'm guessing there is no primary radar coverage over that gulf.

Nick and cyeg66, do we only have SSR coverage at YYC? Or do we also have primary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_surveillance_radar

Considering the politics of the region, you can almost guarantee that there was some military coverage. North American-based military radars have coverage as far as central Europe, and hell, even Australian radars should be able to pick up traffic well into the South China Sea.

But of course, because of the volume of data, objects are always ignored if it isn't 'odd' - like extremely high speeds or other missile-like behavior. I've heard of this data being used for investigations, but is a painstaking process that can take months to years to comb through.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by VIce

I believe it's possible to turn off a transponder.

Yes you can, you simply move the transponder dial to the "OFF" position.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Yes you can, you simply move the transponder dial to the "OFF" position.

And then you become invisible? Why do we spend so much money on stealth?

[MalcolmTucker]

Transponders save a lot of money for radar sets. You can use a more basic system since you don't have to calculate height only distance and direction.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by VIce

And then you become invisible? Why do we spend so much money on stealth?

You become invisible (for the most part) if all that is being used is SSR radar. Read my post above to Bo about the differences between it and Primary radar.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

You become invisible (for the most part) if all that is being used is SSR radar. Read my post above to Bo about the differences between it and Primary radar.

I know the difference. I was being sarcastic at having it been made so clear that I have no idea what the business end of an aircraft looks like. Depending on how you define business, anyway.

[cyeg66]

Most of the radar sites around major centers have collocated PSR and SSR, like in YYC. A primary radar site is only reasonably reliable out to 80 miles from the dish, yet it's what allows us to run spacing tighter on smaller radar ranges like in a terminal. Having redundancy. On our scope, a prime-only return would appear to look like an eagle's talon (we call them chicken feet). SSR obviously is what allows the radar to correlate the information with a data tag. At the distance in question, over the gulf, suspiciously just on the edge or outside of prime surveillance, it is painfully coincidental that the plane would disappear of centers' scopes. With the information (or lack thereof) so far, it reeks from here to Hanoi. Oops, too soon?


Regardless, planes are so rugged nowadays that it's almost unheard of that they could have a catastrophic failure that would bring it down in a very short amount of time with no mayday call or anything... Weird.

[Bokimon]

Yes, I realize the primary would still give a blip on the radar even with the aircraft transponder turned off, and some amount of information too according to your info. If ground radar is indeed spotty over there I can see somebody clever to exploit this and potentially get under everybody's noses.

Another thing in my mind was that there is no word of its ELT beacon going off. The gulf waters there is about 45-50m deep which is really nothing, infact Lake Erie type of depth.
Unless it was obliterated one would assume the signal would of been triggered in a disaster event. This whole ordeal is really fascinating, if sometime later we find out the airplane is some other part of the globe with all pax ok, this would be truly remarkable..
Lots of people including myself in deep thought about this..

But I'm sure someone at Malaysia dispatch would of attempted a phone call at least..

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by cyeg66

Most of the radar sites around major centers have collocated PSR and SSR, like in YYC. A primary radar site is only reasonably reliable out to 80 miles from the dish, yet it's what allows us to run spacing tighter on smaller radar ranges like in a terminal. Having redundancy. On our scope, a prime-only return would appear to look like an eagle's talon (we call them chicken feet). SSR obviously is what allows the radar to correlate the information with a data tag. At the distance in question, over the gulf, suspiciously just on the edge or outside of prime surveillance, it is painfully coincidental that the plane would disappear of centers' scopes. With the information (or lack thereof) so far, it reeks from here to Hanoi. Oops, too soon?


Regardless, planes are so rugged nowadays that it's almost unheard of that they could have a catastrophic failure that would bring it down in a very short amount of time with no mayday call or anything... Weird.

For me this accident has echos of the Air France accident off Brazil a few years ago. Everyone said that a modern airliner wouldn't disappear yet that one did and it took over 2 years to find the wreckage, I would suspect that it'll take at least a year to find the wreckage.

I don't, given the depth of the water. That seemed to be the thing slowing down the most.