Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"
Discussion
Le TVR said:
That's ads-b based on satellite communications, it's a data link system that's been around for a while. The pilot switched that off also. AreOut said:
comparing the northernmost reachable point on the 7th arc with current search area, if we are about probabilities it is much more probable the plane lies a lot northern than ATSB thought
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1H/I4/2Nh4gyC5/debris.jpg
Is it just me? I don't understand this.http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1H/I4/2Nh4gyC5/debris.jpg
Both graphics have the same title, but they are different. What am I seeing?
RenOHH said:
Is it just me? I don't understand this.
Both graphics have the same title, but they are different. What am I seeing?
Without studying the site, I'm guessing that if you drop your rubber duck in the locations shown, the two graphics show where you can expect to find it 12 months later.Both graphics have the same title, but they are different. What am I seeing?
Axionknight said:
Mojocvh said:
2013BRM said:
Koofler said:
Just read on the BBC that the part
has arrived in France and they are going to start work on it immediately. On Wednesday. WTF?
you can't rush the Frenchieshas arrived in France and they are going to start work on it immediately. On Wednesday. WTF?
TTmonkey said:
Floating/detaching black boxes is a solution that's from the dark ages.
The Air France crash shows that the technology is already there to transmit adequate data whilst an aircraft is in flight many miles from land. he French already knew the root cause of the accident before it was confirmed that the pilots failed to react properly to the problem. The root cause was the icing of the pitot tubes and the loss of flight speed information. Te black boxes eventually confirmed this and the pilots lack of proper corrective actions. The French were replacing pitot tubes within hours of the crash.
Lack of finding for live data transmission on new major aircraft is also an unacceptable excuse. Yes older planes will be hard and expensive to retro fit. However, not using data transmission due to costs incurred is also an unacceptable position. If this technology is already fitted to an aircraft I must be mandatory that its used and not turned off by some bean counters. If it eventually affects flight costs then so be it, too many rubbish airline companies are already guilty of cutting costs and corners to offer cheaper fairs. It must stop. If that means some people can't afford to travel or that they have to pay more than that's the cost and it should be accepted.
Additionally, the ability of the aircrew to turn off some of these systems must be reigned in. The ability to turn off transponders when the aircraft is in the air is a pointless idea. The risk of a transponder system actually causing a fire type emergency is so low as to not relevant. When a chivvy aircraft is in the air it should and must be transmitting its location, without any interference from a single individual. The authorities should change the law on this immediately....
An EPIRB on a hydrostatic release would be a sensible move in my opinion, at least the last known position over water in the event of an emergency would be transmitted and give rescuers a fighting chance. The Air France crash shows that the technology is already there to transmit adequate data whilst an aircraft is in flight many miles from land. he French already knew the root cause of the accident before it was confirmed that the pilots failed to react properly to the problem. The root cause was the icing of the pitot tubes and the loss of flight speed information. Te black boxes eventually confirmed this and the pilots lack of proper corrective actions. The French were replacing pitot tubes within hours of the crash.
Lack of finding for live data transmission on new major aircraft is also an unacceptable excuse. Yes older planes will be hard and expensive to retro fit. However, not using data transmission due to costs incurred is also an unacceptable position. If this technology is already fitted to an aircraft I must be mandatory that its used and not turned off by some bean counters. If it eventually affects flight costs then so be it, too many rubbish airline companies are already guilty of cutting costs and corners to offer cheaper fairs. It must stop. If that means some people can't afford to travel or that they have to pay more than that's the cost and it should be accepted.
Additionally, the ability of the aircrew to turn off some of these systems must be reigned in. The ability to turn off transponders when the aircraft is in the air is a pointless idea. The risk of a transponder system actually causing a fire type emergency is so low as to not relevant. When a chivvy aircraft is in the air it should and must be transmitting its location, without any interference from a single individual. The authorities should change the law on this immediately....
el stovey said:
Le TVR said:
That's ads-b based on satellite communications, it's a data link system that's been around for a while. The pilot switched that off also. If they dont want it switchable then its not really an issue to make transponders Intrinsically Safe with no requirement for any CB that anyone can use to disable it. The extra costs compared to the TSO certification of a standard unit would be minimal.
Le TVR said:
Actually it hasnt started yet. Its a refit of the Irridium satellites and should start in 2017.
If they dont want it switchable then its not really an issue to make transponders Intrinsically Safe with no requirement for any CB that anyone can use to disable it. The extra costs compared to the TSO certification of a standard unit would be minimal.
Right but as I'm sure you are aware satellite tracking through CPDLC/ADS-C (FANS) has been around in commercial aviation for some years. I'm not sure what the difference with your link is, perhaps it's the actual satellite company saying they will be launching some by 2017.If they dont want it switchable then its not really an issue to make transponders Intrinsically Safe with no requirement for any CB that anyone can use to disable it. The extra costs compared to the TSO certification of a standard unit would be minimal.
For those not familiar with the lingo, CPDLC is a datalink communication system where pilots can send messages and request and receive clearances etc digitally in the form of text messages, ADS-C is a separate system which allows automatic position reporting. Both have been in use for quite a few years.
The system allows for reduced separation between aircraft in some oceanic areas and allows improved communication over areas where previously HF radio was relied on like the Atlantic Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Yes, limited satellite capacity for FANS 1/A has been available for a few years now on S Band.
The current plan is to refit the LEO satellites with 1GHz capability to directly interoperate with standard ADS-B transponders. This requires ITU-R to authorise 1090MHz as a satellite service frequency. This is expected to happen latter this year at the WRC plenary.
The current plan is to refit the LEO satellites with 1GHz capability to directly interoperate with standard ADS-B transponders. This requires ITU-R to authorise 1090MHz as a satellite service frequency. This is expected to happen latter this year at the WRC plenary.
Le TVR said:
Yes, limited satellite capacity for FANS 1/A has been available for a few years now on S Band.
The current plan is to refit the LEO satellites with 1GHz capability to directly interoperate with standard ADS-B transponders. This requires ITU-R to authorise 1090MHz as a satellite service frequency. This is expected to happen latter this year at the WRC plenary.
I was with you up to "Yes".The current plan is to refit the LEO satellites with 1GHz capability to directly interoperate with standard ADS-B transponders. This requires ITU-R to authorise 1090MHz as a satellite service frequency. This is expected to happen latter this year at the WRC plenary.
davepoth said:
Le TVR said:
Yes, limited satellite capacity for FANS 1/A has been available for a few years now on S Band.
The current plan is to refit the LEO satellites with 1GHz capability to directly interoperate with standard ADS-B transponders. This requires ITU-R to authorise 1090MHz as a satellite service frequency. This is expected to happen latter this year at the WRC plenary.
I was with you up to "Yes".The current plan is to refit the LEO satellites with 1GHz capability to directly interoperate with standard ADS-B transponders. This requires ITU-R to authorise 1090MHz as a satellite service frequency. This is expected to happen latter this year at the WRC plenary.
What I think he meant to say was - they're working on it.
Le TVR said:
Yes, limited satellite capacity for FANS 1/A has been available for a few years now on S Band.
The current plan is to refit the LEO satellites with 1GHz capability to directly interoperate with standard ADS-B transponders. This requires ITU-R to authorise 1090MHz as a satellite service frequency. This is expected to happen latter this year at the WRC plenary.
So in layman terms, how will that change things from how they are at present? The current plan is to refit the LEO satellites with 1GHz capability to directly interoperate with standard ADS-B transponders. This requires ITU-R to authorise 1090MHz as a satellite service frequency. This is expected to happen latter this year at the WRC plenary.
AreOut said:
comparing the northernmost reachable point on the 7th arc with current search area, if we are about probabilities it is much more probable the plane lies a lot northern than ATSB thought
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1H/I4/2Nh4gyC5/debris.jpg
No it isn't.http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1H/I4/2Nh4gyC5/debris.jpg
I promised myself I wouldn't respond to you again, but seriously, that is just complete b
ksThe idea is that by opening a satellite link on 1090 MHz means that the satellites can be seamlessly integrated into the current coverage that uses just ground stations to give global coverage. Avoids having to add new equipment to aircraft, why update 300,000+ aircraft rather than 66 satellites?
There is just the political issue that 1090 is allocated to the aero mobile service. It need to have satellite service category added in the Radio Regulations.
There is just the political issue that 1090 is allocated to the aero mobile service. It need to have satellite service category added in the Radio Regulations.
Blaster72 said:
What I think he meant to say was - they're working on it.
Yes we are thank you Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff