Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"

[jmorgan]

Inmarsat to offer free tracking says a bit on the BBC news web site.
BBC link

BBC said:

UK satellite operator Inmarsat is to offer a free, basic tracking service to all the world's passenger airliners.

The offer follows the case of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared without trace on 8 March.

It was very brief electronic "pings" from Inmarsat equipment on the lost plane that prompted investigators to look for wreckage in the Indian Ocean.

Inmarsat says the free service it is offering would carry definitive positional information.

More in the link.

[TTmonkey]

jmorgan said:

Inmarsat to offer free tracking says a bit on the BBC news web site.
BBC link

BBC said:

UK satellite operator Inmarsat is to offer a free, basic tracking service to all the world's passenger airliners.

The offer follows the case of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared without trace on 8 March.

It was very brief electronic "pings" from Inmarsat equipment on the lost plane that prompted investigators to look for wreckage in the Indian Ocean.

Inmarsat says the free service it is offering would carry definitive positional information.

More in the link.

Its interesting that so many 'know alls' said every airline having this monitoring was impossible due to the high cost involved and yet the company now offers the basic service for free to everyone.

Its basically pennies. The infrastructure is there to support it, and the storage costs of the data is tiny. The data can easily be piggybacked onto data links thats already established as no extra cost.

[jmorgan]

To be honest, and without the figures to hand, I would have assumed it was the case. Cost get cut everywhere and on someone's spreadsheet, they don't go into the nitty gritty if a benefit in the final column is seen. At least that is my experience of cost cutting.

[Campo]

TTmonkey said:

Its interesting that so many 'know alls' said every airline having this monitoring was impossible due to the high cost involved and yet the company now offers the basic service for free to everyone.

Its basically pennies. The infrastructure is there to support it, and the storage costs of the data is tiny. The data can easily be piggybacked onto data links thats already established as no extra cost.

They are offering to record the aircraft position every 15 minutes for free, they've also said they are hoping airlines will be tempted to pay for their premium services.

This is a purely commercial decision, they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

They quote their equipment is in 90% of the worlds widebody airliners, what about the thousands of narrow body jets that don't have Satcom? Are they going to pay for it to be installed on all of those aircraft too?

There's a whole bunch of holes in this offer and the previous quotes on this thread about airlines being reluctant due to cost stands up to scrutiny still.

Edited by Campo on Monday 12th May 12:23

[GSE]

It's good news if a such a positioning system can be implemented using infrastructure that is already in place. But the plane is yet to be found, and there are still doubts on how the data was analysed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014...

Time will tell I suppose.

No doubt this 'free service' is a commercial move. Inmarsat must be quite pleased with the publicity they have received. I can see the marketing graphs showing traffic and revenue growth...

[surveyor]

Campo said:

TTmonkey said:

Its interesting that so many 'know alls' said every airline having this monitoring was impossible due to the high cost involved and yet the company now offers the basic service for free to everyone.

Its basically pennies. The infrastructure is there to support it, and the storage costs of the data is tiny. The data can easily be piggybacked onto data links thats already established as no extra cost.

They are offering to record the aircraft position every 15 minutes for free, they've also said they are hoping airlines will be tempted to pay for their premium services.

This is a purely commercial decision, they aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

They quote their equipment is in 90% of the worlds widebody airliners, what about the thousands of narrow body jets that don't have Satcom? Are they going to pay for it to be installed on all of those aircraft too?

There's a whole bunch of holes in this offer and the previous quotes on this thread about airlines being reluctant due to cost stands up to scrutiny still.

Edited by Campo on Monday 12th May 12:23

My understanding is that the offer is subject to the airline installing (and paying for) the kit and link to the airplane itself.... Sounds like business generation with a sound bite....

[M4cruiser]

Since it has disappeared from the news, as well as from the skies, I can't find out what's happening (or not happening).

Are the Australians still looking for it?

[rolando]

M4cruiser said:

Are the Australians still looking for it?

Looking for what?

[200bhp]

M4cruiser said:

Are the Australians still looking for it?

Ship was back in port a couple of days ago, apparently to re-stock and for repairs to the submersible.

[Mojocvh]

TTmonkey said:

jmorgan said:

Inmarsat to offer free tracking says a bit on the BBC news web site.
BBC link

BBC said:

UK satellite operator Inmarsat is to offer a free, basic tracking service to all the world's passenger airliners.

The offer follows the case of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared without trace on 8 March.

It was very brief electronic "pings" from Inmarsat equipment on the lost plane that prompted investigators to look for wreckage in the Indian Ocean.

Inmarsat says the free service it is offering would carry definitive positional information.

More in the link.

Its interesting that so many 'know alls' said every airline having this monitoring was impossible due to the high cost involved and yet the company now offers the basic service for free to everyone.

Its basically pennies. The infrastructure is there to support it, and the storage costs of the data is tiny. The data can easily be piggybacked onto data links thats already established as no extra cost.

No what was denounced was the Accident Data Recorder information to be uploaded in real time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder

Modern day FDRs receive inputs via specific data frames from the Flight Data Acquisition Units (FDAU). They record significant flight parameters, including the control and actuator positions, engine information and time of day. There are 88 parameters required as a minimum under current U.S. federal regulations (only 29 were required until 2002), but some systems monitor many more variables. Generally each parameter is recorded a few times per second, though some units store "bursts" of data at a much higher frequency if the data begins to change quickly.

Most FDRs record approximately 17–25 hours worth of data in a continuous loop.

Edited to add ref of sorts.

Edited by Mojocvh on Monday 12th May 22:56

[Mojocvh]

MartG said:

marshalla said:

And modern avionics produce a lot more data to record.

When you can get a 2 hr HD movie in a couple of GB, how much storage do you need ?

Spot the data storage unit

Ref..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder

Specifications

Currently, EUROCAE specifies that a recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s²) for 6.5 milliseconds. This is roughly equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots (310 mph) and a deceleration or crushing distance of 450 cm. Additionally, there are requirements for penetration resistance, static crush, high and low temperature fires, deep sea pressure, sea water immersion, and fluid immersion.

Edited by Mojocvh on Monday 12th May 22:58

[Olf]

Someone once said force = mass × acceleration. So you can take your massive (de)acceleration, go forth and multiply it by 0.0005kg. Fire aside of course

Edited by Olf on Monday 12th May 23:15

[Mojocvh]

Olf said:

Someone once said force = mass × acceleration. So you can take your massive (de)acceleration, go forth and multiply it by 0.0005kg. Fire aside of course

Edited by Olf on Monday 12th May 23:15

Can't really see what you're getting at...

[tertius]

Mojocvh said:

Olf said:

Someone once said force = mass × acceleration. So you can take your massive (de)acceleration, go forth and multiply it by 0.0005kg. Fire aside of course

Edited by Olf on Monday 12th May 23:15

Can't really see what you're getting at...

He's pointing out the memory card weighs almost nothing, so the resultant "force" experienced as a result of the crash will be commensurately reduced.

[Mojocvh]

tertius said:

Mojocvh said:

Olf said:

Someone once said force = mass × acceleration. So you can take your massive (de)acceleration, go forth and multiply it by 0.0005kg. Fire aside of course

Edited by Olf on Monday 12th May 23:15

Can't really see what you're getting at...

He's pointing out the memory card weighs almost nothing, so the resultant "force" experienced as a result of the crash will be commensurately reduced.

Ah gotcha. The trouble is all the rest of the detritus at impact weights "something" and has large amounts of released energy too.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjqu_0L90w

Edited by Mojocvh on Wednesday 14th May 10:25

[GarageQueen]

Apologies if its been discussed earlier in the thread...........but why the hell are pilots allowed to turn off tracking devices / responders???? Why do they even have an 'off' switch at all??? That troubles me

Also, I can't understand why there isn't the technology in the black boxes that can contact emergency services and give its precise location without the need for detectors.

Edited by GarageQueen on Tuesday 13th May 19:12

[B17NNS]

GarageQueen said:

but why the hell are pilots allowed to turn off tracking devices / responders???? Why do they even have an 'off' switch at all???

Imagine an electrical fire caused by a failure or fault in the transponder. At 37,000 feet do you want to be able to isolate the fire by turning it off or hope it doesn't spread and destroy the aircraft before you to find somewhere to land?

[GSE]

GarageQueen said:

Apologies if its been discussed earlier in the thread...........but why the hell are pilots allowed to turn off tracking devices / responders???? Why do they even have an 'off' switch at all??? That troubles me

Also, I can't understand why there isn't the technology in the black boxes that can contact emergency services and give its precise location without the need for detectors.

Edited by GarageQueen on Tuesday 13th May 19:12

It's to do with being able to isolate electrical devices that may malfunction during a flight and cause a fire risk.

HD CVR/FDR black boxes will solve the 2hr over-write issue, but none of them will be any use if they can't be located at the bottom of the sea wrapped up in a metal box. Existing system of acoustic pings over a limited range for a month or so is clearly inadequate. May be the memory section of the system should be on some sort of external pod, with a locating beacon, that breaks away from the aircraft on impact and floats on the top of the sea?

[marshalla]

GSE said:

May be the memory section of the system should be on some sort of external pod, with a locating beacon, that breaks away from the aircraft on impact and floats on the top of the sea?

Or in turbulence/strong cross-winds, or during a rough landing, or when a cleaner knocks it with a broom....

The people who design these things can't win, can they ? Everybody else knows better.

[GSE]

marshalla said:

Or in turbulence/strong cross-winds, or during a rough landing, or when a cleaner knocks it with a broom....

Yes I suppose that could be a problem ... like when they stuck tape over the static ports before cleaning the plane but forgot to remove them afterwards.

marshalla said:

The people who design these things can't win, can they ? Everybody else knows better.

There are many instances of complacency within the airline industry that have caused disasters. A bit of independent lateral thinking sometimes helps.