Why the speed reading was not a glitch

The company behind the platform quickly responded on its official X (formerly Twitter) account, stating that the “extreme speed was not a system error but a function of the transponder on this airplane.” The explanation centers on how Flightradar24 gathers data from aircraft and how different transponder technologies can produce misleading speed calculations.

Data sources: ADS‑B vs. MLAT

Flightradar24 relies on two major data streams:

• ADS‑B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance‑Broadcast) – a satellite‑derived system that continuously transmits an aircraft’s precise GPS position, altitude, heading, and true airspeed. Modern airliners, including most of Air Peace’s fleet, are equipped with ADS‑B Out transponders that feed accurate data directly to ground receivers.
• MLAT (Multilateration) – a backup method that triangulates an aircraft’s position by measuring the time it takes a transponder’s signal to reach several ground stations. MLAT is used when an aircraft’s ADS‑B signal is unavailable or when older transponders are still in operation.

How MLAT can create “impossible” speeds

MLAT calculates position based on the time‑difference of arrival (TDOA) of a signal at multiple receivers. Small timing errors—often just a few microseconds—can translate into large geographic misplacements. When the calculated position jumps forward on the map, the platform automatically derives a higher ground speed to bridge the distance between two successive points. In extreme cases, the derived speed can exceed the aircraft’s actual velocity, sometimes appearing “supersonic.”

Specifics of the Air Peace incident

In this case, the flight’s data were primarily sourced from MLAT rather than ADS‑B. The transponder onboard 5N‑BUL transmitted a signal that the network of receivers interpreted with a slight timing offset, causing the platform to plot the aircraft farther ahead than its true location. Consequently, the system reported a ground speed of 910 knots, even though the aircraft was most likely cruising at its normal 450‑knots cruise speed.

Verification from other sources

No official aviation authority (e.g., Ghana Civil Aviation Authority or Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority) issued a safety bulletin about a supersonic breach. Moreover, Air Peace’s own flight schedule indicated a routine Lagos‑Accra service, and there were no reports from pilots, air traffic controllers, or passengers indicating any abnormal flight behaviour. These corroborating facts reinforce the conclusion that the “supersonic tempo” was a data‑interpretation artifact, not an actual flight event.

Summary

The Air Peace Boeing 737‑36N did not break the sound barrier over Ghana. The apparent 910‑knot speed shown on Flightradar24 was a by‑product of the platform’s reliance on MLAT data for that particular aircraft, coupled with a minor timing discrepancy in the transponder signal. The incident highlights the importance of understanding the limitations of real‑time flight‑tracking technology and reminds users to cross‑verify unusual readings with multiple data sources.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For Aviation Enthusiasts and Flight‑Tracking Users

1. Cross‑check data sources. When you see an extreme speed, compare the reading on Flightradar24 with other platforms such as FlightAware or PlaneFinder. Discrepancies often point to MLAT‑derived data.
2. Look for ADS‑B indicators. Flightradar24 marks ADS‑B‑derived tracks with a “ADS‑B” label. If this label is missing, the track may rely on MLAT, which is more prone to errors.
3. Check the flight’s route and altitude. Unusual speed spikes that occur at cruising altitude (30 000 ft ± 5 000 ft) are more likely to be tracking errors than legitimate supersonic flights.
4. Read the platform’s notes. Flightradar24 often publishes blog posts explaining technical nuances; these can clarify why a particular flight appears abnormal.

For Pilots and Airline Operators

1. Maintain ADS‑B compliance. Upgrading older transponders to ADS‑B Out reduces the likelihood of misleading MLAT data.
2. Report anomalies. If a flight crew notices an unusual speed display on a ground‑based monitoring system, inform the airline’s operations department so they can verify the data source.
3. Educate crew about data interpretation. Understanding that external tracking platforms may misrepresent speed can prevent unnecessary concern during flight.

For Aviation Regulators

1. Encourage universal ADS‑B adoption. Many regions have mandated ADS‑B for airspace monitoring; continued enforcement improves data reliability for both ATC and the public.
2. Provide guidance on public flight‑tracking data. Issuing advisories that explain the difference between ADS‑B and MLAT can help reduce misinformation.

Points of Caution

• Misinterpretation risk. Relying solely on a single flight‑tracking source can lead to false conclusions about an aircraft’s speed, altitude, or route.
• Privacy considerations. While public platforms increase transparency, they also raise concerns about the exposure of aircraft movements, especially for private or government flights.
• Technical limitations. MLAT accuracy depends on the density of ground receivers; sparsely covered regions are more prone to timing errors.
• Legal liability. Flight‑tracking companies typically include disclaimers stating that data are for informational purposes only, limiting legal responsibility for inaccuracies.

Comparison

ADS‑B vs. MLAT: Accuracy, Coverage, and Cost

Legal Implications

In the context of this incident, there are no direct legal consequences for Air Peace, Flightradar24, or the aviation authorities, because the “supersonic” reading was an artifact of data processing rather than a breach of any safety regulation. However, the episode does raise broader legal topics that merit attention:

• Data accuracy disclaimer. Flight‑tracking services typically include a legal disclaimer stating that the information is “for informational purposes only” and may contain errors. This protects the company from liability if a user relies on inaccurate data for operational decisions.
• Regulatory reporting. If a flight were truly traveling at supersonic speeds without appropriate clearance, it would constitute a violation of air‑traffic regulations, potentially leading to fines or sanctions under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards.
• Privacy and data protection. Public dissemination of aircraft movements must comply with local privacy laws (e.g., GDPR in the EU). While commercial flights are generally considered public, the aggregation of real‑time data can raise privacy debates for private or state aircraft.
• Consumer protection. Media outlets that publish sensational headlines without context may be scrutinized under consumer‑protection statutes for misleading the public.

Conclusion

The Air Peace Boeing 737‑36N incident serves as a textbook example of how modern flight‑tracking technology—while incredibly useful—can sometimes generate misleading information due to the interplay of different data sources. The “supersonic tempo” seen on Flightradar24 was not a real event but a side effect of the platform’s reliance on MLAT data for that particular aircraft. Understanding the distinction between ADS‑B and MLAT, recognizing the inherent limitations of each system, and cross‑verifying unusual readings are essential practices for anyone who follows live aviation data.

FAQ