I like how they can use all this high tech stuff to follow pings, along with all the other crap...and still cant find a single sign of an airplane. The Navy should be able to use subs and onship detectors and find the flight recorder in no time...but 3 weeks ?...with nothing at all.
Maybe after this, airlines should be required to have GPS systems installed that can track them 24 hours a day, that has no access or control from the crew. It would have to be turned off on the ground, and would show up inoperable as soon as that happened. The transponder in the flight recorder has apparently outlived its usefullness since they apparently cant be found unless they land on the ground in a bare field. It is ancient technology.
If you want to launch an attack and never be found, launch long range missiles from the South Indian Ocean. No one will know where they came from or how to find you... *sigh*
My wife gave me another scenario for yet another conspiracy theory that she read.
There were several engineers from Freescale Semiconductor (i.e., Motorola) on board that plane. Four of the engineers each owned 20% of the patent on a technology that would allow a normal aircraft to have the (much smaller) radar signature of a stealth aircraft. Seems that the patent had been applied for but was still "open"...
A thought of interest. I am sure you have seen the displays of outrage by relatives of the flights passengers. I had thought they were awful impatient (at the beginning) and overly aggressive in condemnation of information being released. My friend pointed out that most of the passengers were Chinese. That they are only allowed one kid. Also, a friend of my wife just got back from China (vacation). She was trying and trying to get on facebook. She did not know that it is unpossible to do that in China. The wife and I were discussing the fact that the Chinese are only allowed one kid. Her co-worker told her that people may violate the childbirth ban, but that they had to assume all responsibility for any additional children. That the kids are not even allowed a name, as in they do not officially exist. Throughout life. That they would never be eligible for any "communistic benefits (?)". That they would be people without a nationality.
I am with Mr. Garrison (above) that it seems unacceptable that worldwide, the commercial airlines industry has not moved aggressively to update their aircraft tracking, real-time data streaming and even the "black boxes" to better utilize the capabilities of current technology. This technology seems to have been frozen in time, not progressing very much since the 1960s or 1970s at best.
For example, I read that even if they recover the cockpit voice recorder (one of the two "black boxes") it will only have the final two hours of that flight recorded. I'm no hardware expert, but I would think that they could easily update that to record all cockpit voice data for an entire transcontinental flight and not have to expand the outside dimensions of the "black box".
It seems to me that that too many of the air carriers are either not pushing for such technical advances, or--for whatever reasons--are pushing against this. Like they don't want to have some additional costs incorporated in the purchase price or leasing costs of their aircraft?
If all the carriers have to incorporate the same new standards, they can all factor these costs into their air fares, and no single carrier would be at a competitive disadvantage.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-27-2014).]
I am with Mr. Garrison (above) that it seems unacceptable that worldwide, the commercial airlines industry has not moved aggressively to update their aircraft tracking, real-time data streaming and even the "black boxes" to better utilize the capabilities of current technology. This technology seems to have been frozen in time, not progressing very much since the 1960s or 1970s at best.
For example, I read that even if they recover the cockpit voice recorder (one of the two "black boxes") it will only have the final two hours of that flight recorded. I'm no hardware expert, but I would think that they could easily update that to record all cockpit voice data for an entire transcontinental flight and not have to expand the outside dimensions of the "black box".
I agree to an extent. It shouldn't hard to allow the CVR to record more than 2 hours. However, the airplane DID have the option for GPS tracking, it was just turned off. It also had ACARS, which was also disabled by the crew or a malfunction.
So are you proposing having a GPS or tracking system that cannot be disabled by the crew? What happens if there's a problem with this tracking system (such as an electrical fire, similar to the one that caused a 787 to catch on fire with extensive structural damage)? IMO, the crew should always be able to control all systems of the airplane at all times.
Thats exactly what im saying. A simple GPS tracker only has to be fused so that if theirs a problem, it shuts off like any other circuit should. It could also be contained in a fireproof box, so it couldnt do any damage even if it exploded. It would be immediately apparent when the signal shut off to someone on the ground as well as the pilots. So again, exactly what Im saying is the crew should have NO way to disable it in the air. I may be wrong, but I actually think cockpit voice recorder only does the last 30 minutes before it overwrites itself.
There already must be some 2 way communication with car GPS. You can transmit updated road info (like add new roads) and you can get instant traffic reports with most of them. Shouldnt be a problem for an airline to spend an extra $200 per plane for a 6" metal cube mounted in the tail. It can have an external antenna that dont require any power or use an internal one like cars do. My car GPS units work great in my plane except they keep telling me to 'proceed to nearest highway' I dont program any destinations, but use them like a map to follow as I go.
I'm just saying, its impossible to design a device that is fail-proof in all conditions, and so the pilots should be able to have the final override.
Uhm, its not fail proof, but it would be damage proof. GPS / CVR in a Steel insulated box. With a series of caps/resistors/diodes inside the box to allow voltage to only flow in one direction at a set voltage. So even if the device dead shorted and caught fire, there would be zero voltage flowing to anything external of the box. The box could be continuously charged when power is applied, and go to internal battery power in the result of catastrophic failure. With a simple antenna lead and power leads you would be good to go. My set top DVR can record 500hrs of Video, so I don't see any reason you cant use a solid state drive even go nuts and raid a couple SSD's inside the box Would be no bigger than a NAS box. 1/4 inch steel plate with Kevlar insulation and another 1/4 steel plate box inside the Kevlar ballon, and you would be set.
This way in the event of hijacking or other issue it Could NOT Be Turned Off. The only reason to have anything like this disabled would be to prevent "bad guys" on the ground from tracking you, but the instance of that happening would be so slim that it would outweigh the reasons to have it. I would probably incorporate some sort of underwater ping device to allow the device to be found in deep sea situations.
I know nothing is perfect, but something better than current standards might be a good idea. There are enough good reasons to have a device that pilots can not shut off, that it should be made standard.
------------------ 857GT Part 85GT Part 87GT Part Caddy, 93 Eldorado 4.9, 5spd Dual O2 Custom Chip, Custom Exhaust. MSD Everything Now with Nitrous. Capt Fiero --- My Over View Cadero Pics For Sale $4000, Yellow 88GT 5spd Full Poly Suspension, Lowered 1/2" in front, Corner Carver.
More/different satellite data, and suddenly the search shifts nearly 700 miles NE from the point Inmarsat 2 days ago, said the debris field was located. Yet another "credible new lead". All these sat images, data, and information for the last 2 weeks and not one photo has been taken of wreckage or debris on the ocean by search aircarft or ships---- much less anything recovered. Yet.
In the last week, Japan, Thailand and France have all said their satellites had picked up images of objects that could be debris from the plane. Most of the objects have measured from about 3 feet to about 65 feet. Those sightings were in an area southwest of the new zone, and none have been found yet.
Japan's Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office said the objects its satellite spotted were located about 1,560 miles southwest of Perth, which would place them in the same general area as the 122 objects spotted by a French satellite on Sunday.
A Thai satellite revealed about 300 objects about 125 miles to the southwest of the items seen by the Japanese and French satellites. The photos were taken Monday, one day after the French and two days before the Japanese.
So, why haven't any of these sat "photos" been made public? Do they really even exist? Maybe they'll put a automobile license plate on all planes from this day forward and the satellites of any modern nation can spot a downed aircraft immediately.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-28-2014).]
Maybe they'll put a automobile license plate on all planes from this day forward and the satellites of any modern nation can spot a downed aircraft immediately.
There is a big difference between finding a needle in a haystack and examining that needle under a microscope once you know where it is.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-28-2014).]
Uhm, its not fail proof, but it would be damage proof. GPS / CVR in a Steel insulated box. With a series of caps/resistors/diodes inside the box to allow voltage to only flow in one direction at a set voltage. So even if the device dead shorted and caught fire, there would be zero voltage flowing to anything external of the box. The box could be continuously charged when power is applied, and go to internal battery power in the result of catastrophic failure. With a simple antenna lead and power leads you would be good to go. My set top DVR can record 500hrs of Video, so I don't see any reason you cant use a solid state drive even go nuts and raid a couple SSD's inside the box Would be no bigger than a NAS box. 1/4 inch steel plate with Kevlar insulation and another 1/4 steel plate box inside the Kevlar ballon, and you would be set.
This way in the event of hijacking or other issue it Could NOT Be Turned Off. The only reason to have anything like this disabled would be to prevent "bad guys" on the ground from tracking you, but the instance of that happening would be so slim that it would outweigh the reasons to have it. I would probably incorporate some sort of underwater ping device to allow the device to be found in deep sea situations.
I know nothing is perfect, but something better than current standards might be a good idea. There are enough good reasons to have a device that pilots can not shut off, that it should be made standard.
Pretty much correct...you really dont even need to wire power to it. Just have a groundcrew person replace or recharge its own battery, even if its every landing. The plane is usually on the ground for at least an hour every stop to get fuel or change passengers anyway. Its pretty simple to find a battery that will even last for a non stop flight between any two point on earth.
Why aren't they using search aircraft capable of landing on water for this search so that they can land and pickup these peace's of whatever and find out right then and there if they are parts of the plane they are looking for. Makes sense to me but then I don't have that college degree that is required to be in charge of anything this important.
Why aren't they using search aircraft capable of landing on water for this search so that they can land and pickup these peace's of whatever and find out right then and there if they are parts of the plane they are looking for. Makes sense to me but then I don't have that college degree that is required to be in charge of anything this important.
Steve
I would be willing to bet those sorts of planes dont have the range needed. The ocean is big remember Perhaps if they scoot out something they can stage off of and use it as a 'base of operations' for the search, but i doubt we would send a carrier out for something this minor.
Why aren't they using search aircraft capable of landing on water for this search so that they can land and pickup these peace's of whatever and find out right then and there if they are parts of the plane they are looking for. Makes sense to me but then I don't have that college degree that is required to be in charge of anything this important.
Steve
That area of the "Ocean World" is extremely rough this time of year, probably the worst in the world. In addition to that it can change in a matter of minutes, which precludes any amphibious aircraft willing to take a chance on getting out of there on time.
Originally posted by 84fiero123: Why aren't they using search aircraft capable of landing on water..?
The satellite imagery analysis provides the location of any debris that is recognized by the satellite imagery analysts. But the debris is drifting because of winds and ocean currents, and so, by the time that the satellite information is analyzed and a location is relayed to the search plane, plus the time that it takes for that search plane to either take off and fly to the area, or change its flight path (if the plane is already in the air), the debris will have moved to some new and not closely predicted location, at some distance from where it appeared in the satellite imagery. That's why the planes have to search. And for the planes to search efficiently, the planes have to possess the range capability to fly from the base in Australia, how ever many miles it is to the search area (not sure how many miles now, but it is a lot), and they have to possess the groundspeed capability to cover a sizable search area in a hurry (because the debris has already moved away from the satellite "fix" and is always moving while the planes are searching) and the planes have to be outfitted with all of the sensors--radar and IR sensors--in addition to human eyes-- that they want to search with.
I don't think that there is a sea-landing capable aircraft that has all the desired characteristics that I just listed.
So, at the stage that the search is at right now--seaplanes or helicopters (same reasons) are not very useful.
My 2-cents worth, anyway.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-29-2014).]
I doubt the debris drifted 700 miles in one day. They were searching a debris field sat images found of "122" objects, a day later they decided to investigate a debris field (sat image) of a 300 object debris field. Next day, decided that debris field was 700 miles away from where the sat people originally said it was.
The debris field didn't actually move. Analysts decided the plane was travelling much faster, burned more fuel, and went down sooner, which placed the point of "ending" much closer to Australia than originally believed. Planes have reportedly taken pictures of the latest debris, but the photos aren't going to be released until ships actually retrieve something.
quote
Originally posted by 84fiero123: Why aren't they using search aircraft capable of landing on water..?
That's what started this whole thing. All planes can land on the water--most can't take off again.
Should know something today one way or another, as ships are supposed to arrive in the area of the latest and greatest "most viable data" field.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-29-2014).]
I doubt the debris drifted 700 miles in one day. They were searching a debris field sat images found of "122" objects, a day later they decided to investigate a debris field (sat image) of a 300 object debris field. Next day, decided that debris field was 700 miles away from where the sat people originally said it was. That's what started this whole thing. All planes can land on the water--most can't take off again.
Shuld now something today one way or another, as ships are supposed to arrive in the area of the latest and greatest "most viable data" field.
Then why not ones like the harrier jump jets, more than capable of not landing in the oceon but capable of landing on an aircraft carrier and hovering over a area of water to pick up something?
I vote Marvin puts up the fence--I'm tired of barbed wire, high tension and fence chargers. Nighty nite.
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
I would prefer to take a nap in my ivory tower, thank you.
See, this is why we can't get anything done. When these two decide " It's all about me, " well, you can understand how easy it is for the less determined to go that way.
Harriers are not equipped to pick anything up, Steve.
[This message has been edited by heybjorn (edited 03-29-2014).]
See, this is why we can't get anything done. When these two decide " It's all about me, " well, you can understand how easy it is for the less determined to go that way.
Harriers are not equipped to pick anything up, Steve.
Then why not a V-22 Osprey? More than capable and used for that from what I have read.
Latest Harrier variant has a range of: Performance
Range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) Combat radius: 300 nmi (350 mi, 556 km) Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km)
Even using ferry range (maximum flying range with full fuel load and no ordinance load) that would just get it to the search location but not allow any loiter (search time) and still wouldn't make it back to base in Aus. It's over 1000 miles from the base in Aus to the search area.
Hovering in a Harrier (jump jet) burns a LOT of fuel and is a tricky manuever over water. Several have crashed when water was ingested into the engine inlets.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-29-2014).]
Roof fight scene where the harrier is being lifted by a crane to use as a recruiting sign and when he is flying after the bad guys in the end over the keys bridge.
Why aren't they using search aircraft capable of landing on water for this search so that they can land and pickup these peace's of whatever and find out right then and there if they are parts of the plane they are looking for. Makes sense to me but then I don't have that college degree that is required to be in charge of anything this important.
OK, smart guy ... Why don't you find a long-range amphibious aircraft capable of operating off water ... landing, and taking off successfully ... in the supremely hostile environment of the Roaring Forties of the southern Indian Ocean. (Hint: You may have to design it and weld it up yourself.) Then you can fly it under those conditions.
Ignorance is bliss. Corollary: Anything is easy for the person who doesn't actually have to do it himself/herself.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-29-2014).]
I dont program any destinations, but use them like a map to follow as I go.
