FrancieBrady wrote: » Understood, but surely some info is better than none. Develop the tech onboard, maybe it won't work all the time, hut it probably would have here. What would be the downside?
TomOnBoard wrote: » Small datasets are already being transmitted air to ground so "some info is better than none" is being delivered, although not a much as you and I might like. For example, ADS-B is supposed to transmit current location so many times per minute for commercial passenger aircraft, but AFAIK its pretty useless in wide oceans or even large tracts of continental land-masses as (to my limited knowledge) it doesn't work 'over the horizon', and wont work unless either satellites are used to collect data and/or a plethora of ocean buoys are put in place. I think Thales and Iridium are working on this but it wont be in place for another few years. In the aviation industry, any technology deployed must work ALL the time; patchy transmission of data sets air to ground would simply not be acceptable. That said, I agree with your sentiment, and struggle with the reliance on 'black boxes' that are useless until found.
faoiarvok wrote: » The Irish Aviation Authority is a major shareholder in Aireon, which is projected to provide global satellite coverage for ADS-B surveillance in 2018.
TomOnBoard wrote: » Is that the Thales/Iridium project?
TomOnBoard wrote: Not only was it disrespectful to name one of the crew members definitively, but it was possibly illegal.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » It's not illegal. It could possibly be incorrect but if as likely will be, correct, then how and in what basis is it correct. There's an attitude in this country that had bring to do with this forum about house wet try to hide information. It's no different from any of the scandals that have occurred, it's people just wanting to protect something or other. Information is coming out that keeps up coming true but as I post this I cannot tell if I'm breaking the rules in doing so.
Means Of Escape wrote: » If the journal posted the recovery of a named crew member 3 hours ago (an hour before you posted the above statement)one would expect that his family would have been notified long before that point ?
irishgeo wrote: » It's seems OK for the journal to post unsubstantiated rumours but no ok for boards to do it. When they are owned by the same company. You can't apply one set of standards for one website and not for the other.
Stoolbend wrote: » Why not? They're different websites.
mandyoh16 wrote: » I'm just curious about this SNIP
irishgeo wrote: » Owned by the same people.
naughto wrote: » I wounder how the mirror had this story of the body first they must no so people on the ground
naughto wrote: I wounder how the mirror had this story of the body first they must no so people on the ground
scuby wrote: » The rescue agencies probably had asked for all media to hold off on reporting until families were informed etc and had some time to take it in before being broadcast. Unfortunately some media want to claim a few points for being first...very petty of them
"as is required by international standards"
adam88 wrote: » What visibility would the divers have when they get into the wreckage????? Ye probably know where I'm going with this and if I'm in the wrong, please delete.
Coil Kilcrea wrote: » Well we won't go anywhere with it other than to say that the conditions would be very difficult with currents, tidal flows, proximity to the rocks, poor light, wreckage and then the awfulness of what they must do. Heroic work.
naughto wrote: » How is there such high swell on a calm day