If something happens your aircraft

Sclosages

You're gone. You can't be traced, tracked, sighted, you're just gone.

Am I right?

gctest50

Sclosages wrote: »

You're gone. You can't be traced, tracked, sighted, you're just gone.

Am I right?

hard to miss them sometimes :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-tMBSJaeRY

martinsvi

if it has something to do with the tragic loss of aircraft that we had this year, bear in mind that radio waves don't propagate through water very well.. A lot of people writing crap about how they can track their kids, mobiles and what not, but fail to understand basic physics- your GSM/GPS/Sat comm frequencies will be attenuated fully by just couple of meters of water.

So if you don't want to be tracked or traced, it's not the aircraft you want.. it's water!

Mech1

My Gopro camera can be watched online via wifi about 100m away, but put it 1 inch into my fish tank and all comms are lost, and thats with my phone directly above the tank!

braddun

airbus sends satellite signal as it crashed ,that's how they found airfrance flight


most crashes happen when take off or landing,so they will recover the plane


boeing will probably put it in planes soon,since they cant find Malaysian plane,a few months ago


they never really give a proper reason why a plane crashes

Growler!!!

braddun wrote: »

they never really give a proper reason why a plane crashes

Depends on the ****e sites you look at.


http://www.aaiu.ie

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm

Have a read. They issue reports based on facts and give causes and recommendations to prevent future accidents.

Tenger

Sclosages wrote: »

You're gone. You can't be traced, tracked, sighted, you're just gone.

Am I right?

No.

braddun wrote: »

....

they never really give a proper reason why a plane crashes

Actually they do. It might take several years but >95% of aircraft crashes are explainable. The problem is that the media (and public) tune out the technical info and may also lose interest quite quickly.

martinsvi

braddun wrote: »

airbus sends satellite signal as it crashed ,that's how they found airfrance flight

If you are talking about the AF447, then no, that's not how they found it. They found the first debris by visual survey the next day it crashed, but it took them nearly two years digging through sea and scanning it's bottom to find the wreck and "black boxes"..

normally once the CVR or FDR detects impact, it starts to emit both sound and radio signals... radio signals, as we already established, are useless under water. What they normally look for is sound signals, so called sonar pings. You cant detect these from a satellite, you need a ship or a submersible actually being in contact with the water to detect these pings. Unfortunately the sonar "ping" range is pretty limited to only about 3-5 km, depending on the temperature/density of the water and also the battery normally runs out within a month, that's when the pings stop

So no, whatever James Bond -style technology you think exists, basic laws (or flaws) of physics say they don't

qt3.14

How come they don't just ping a gps constantly during flight? Even if it was only every few miles or something at least you'd have a fresh flight path and trajectory right? I presume it'd take a bit of extra juice considering how fast my phone goes dead with it on.

braddun

airbus gets sattilite signals as the plane starts shutting down


boeing only gets signals from the engines



that's how they knew where to start looking for the airbus


and not the boeing

martinsvi

qt3.14 wrote: »

How come they don't just ping a gps constantly during flight? Even if it was only every few miles or something at least you'd have a fresh flight path and trajectory right? I presume it'd take a bit of extra juice considering how fast my phone goes dead with it on.

well few things to consider here - GPS in aviation (not GA, but in Jet world) can be quite prone to errors due to the speeds involved, especially in the parts of the world not that much covered by the GPS satellites.

We can take it even further - ADS-B transponders are prone to intermodulation causing data corruption and making stations on ground receiving extreme read-outs, so the receiving equipment on ground is often adjusted to ignore/not capture "extremes" and simply work with the next "normal" ping. That's why looking at flightradar24 playback we never see a crashing plane spiralling out of control, receivers have simply ignored those pings simply to make sure they stay stable and readable on ATC's screen

Then there's the streaming costs. Satellite "broadband" is based on a relatively old technology and there's practically no competition - an environment in which it is difficult to keep the costs down. So why would you spend a fortune on data streaming that potentially could give misleading results?

It's a problem all right, as far as I know, they are working on an improved version of ACARS that would address the issue, but the logistics involved is just beyond anyone's willingness to pick up the bill

martinsvi

braddun wrote: »

airbus gets sattilite signals as the plane starts shutting down

boeing only gets signals from the engines

that's how they knew where to start looking for the airbus

and not the boeing

That's not even discussion's worth, please stop sharing your daily mail wisdom

qt3.14

martinsvi wrote: »

words of wisdom!

I guess it's never as easy as it sounds.

Tenger

braddun wrote: »

airbus gets sattilite signals as the plane starts shutting down


boeing only gets signals from the engines



that's how they knew where to start looking for the airbus


and not the boeing

Go away troll

martinsvi

just realized another thing - planes like A320, B737 and smaller normally are not equipped with ACARS transponders anyway.. I believe they are sold as "extra" by manufacturers, but normally there is no need for it on your typical short-haul network as you're always relatively close to the land. I guess in a way, AirAsia's situation is unique - there are not a lot of places like that in a world where a non-etops aircraft would be lingering around open waters/"uncivilized" jungles/mountains for most of the 2 hour journey

Here's hoping this provides some solution http://www.aireon.com/Solutions/ALERTServices

martinsvi

just came across to what I think could be a superior answer to this topic, taken from pprune, I'm not sure if all of it is true, but the bits that I do know are legit, so here goes:

Aircraft leave the factory with adequate tracking/position reporting capability. Widebodies all have FANS 1/A which provides for ADS-C, CPDLC and ACARS messaging. ADS-C links could have been set up to Air France from AF447 but they were not by human decision as the Senegal system did not have ADS-C. (ADS-C can be active to up to 5 ground agencies). So all that was available were ACARS reports which are through a message switch with no prioritization so the reports can come in at random times. It was a human decision not to provide tracking information the aircraft itself had tracking capability with ADS-C.

All narrow bodies leave the factory with ADS-B. MH370 had the capability to be tracked using ADS-C and ADS-B and it was also in (albeit poor) secondary radar cover. ADS-C and SATCOM were turned off by human decision at the airline. It had Rolls Royce engine tracking capability but this was turned off by human decision at the airline. It had Boeing continual health monitoring capability but this was turned off by human decision at the airline. MH370 had ADS-B and secondary radar transponder - but these transponders were apparently turned off by someone in the cockpit who was unaware of the INMARSAT handshake to a SATCOM on standby.

8501 had ADS-B and was using it along with SSR, both these appear to have worked adequately to identify the likely crash site. It is arguable whether a SATCOM, ADS-C capability should be fitted to such relatively short water crossings as this one and the Gulf of Mexico. But as we have seen the wreckage is where it was expected from the last known ADS-B position report - so there is no real benefit from ADS-C.

In short. there is no need for clever devices, new avionics, gizmos from Radio Shack... ALL aircraft have tracking capability. All that is needed is regulation that mandates aircraft operators use the tracking capability that is already on the aircraft.

Guess what - mandates are already in place for use of ADS-C, ADS-B and SSR.
Indeed expect these mandates to require retrofit to all the older airframes within the next 5 years.

Tracking exists, it works, aircraft can be tracked with an accuracy of a runway width if necessary anywhere in the world.

So please stop trying to propose more expensive** hardware be fitted aircraft to replicate what is already completely adequate tracking capability.

Sclosages

martinsvi wrote: »

aircraft can be tracked with an accuracy of a runway width if necessary anywhere in the world.
.

What happened with MH370 then? They couldn't even get within a half of the world's width.

martinsvi

Sclosages wrote: »

What happened with MH370 then? They couldn't even get within a half of the world's width.

come back when you read the text