Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia to trial new method of tracking planes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by obmot View Post
    It just boggles my mind a bit, frankly, that we landed men on the moon almost 50 years ago yet we still can't track aircraft here on Earth lol.
    We never sent dozens of thousands of Apollos per day to the Moon.

    The problem is not in the technology in itself, it's in the cost of implementing it in a such large scale, with the associated investment, certification, operation and maintenance costs, and in something that will not deliver any return on the investment and expenses except in the very rare event where a plane not only crashes, but also is not found with the "traditional" means.

    Of course, one could say more or less the same thing about fire extinguishers or life vests.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by obmot View Post
      Actually Gabriel, my iPhone can show my location perfectly well (within I'd say 50-100 yards) with zero wifi, zero cellular network whatsoever (i.e. using GPS, **not** AGPS)

      Anyway, Elaw cleared up my misunderstanding, thanks.
      Yes. Receive GPS satellites. Compute GPS coordinate. Display your location.
      Which will be known by you and by.... Oops, nobody else.

      I was saying exactly the same than Elaw, I have just not seen Elaws post when I wrote mine.
      Check the part that I quoted from you when I said "Only if....". I was not talking about the ability of your iPhone to calculate GPS coordinates without cellphone netweork but about the ability of a person 1000 miles away of knowing said GPS coordinates if your iPhone is not on a network at the time.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Yes. Receive GPS satellites. Compute GPS coordinate. Display your location.
        Which will be known by you and by.... Oops, nobody else.

        I was saying exactly the same than Elaw, I have just not seen Elaws post when I wrote mine.
        Check the part that I quoted from you when I said "Only if....". I was not talking about the ability of your iPhone to calculate GPS coordinates without cellphone netweork but about the ability of a person 1000 miles away of knowing said GPS coordinates if your iPhone is not on a network at the time.
        Yes Gabriel, as noted above, Elaw clarified for me quite well earlier. EOD.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
          so you probably think that we should round up all the religious fanatics, including those going around loping off heads and place them in mental institutions until such time as they swear allegiance to country over god?
          No.

          Just round them up and execute them. Long live the King of Jordan and his views on terrorism.
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #35
            As I read all of this brainstorming...

            ...is it really THAT expensive to put up a few OLD FASHIONED, long-range radar antenna's to reflect back when you have a few ton's of stuff hanging in the middle of a bunch of air?

            I know that sometimes it's cheap composite structures hanging in the air instead of electrically excitable metals, but there's still lots of stuff and it's not like a passenger jet has stealth technology in it.....

            ...and you can pay someone (or maybe even get a computer to track the large chunks of stuff (Yeah, they need to have positive ID on the aircraft before it enters the "lower tech RADAR airspace)

            I know you need a FEW stations due to the curvature of the earth....

            Of course, I get it...if you fly from Puerto Rico to the US mainland, a major chunk of your ocean time is not in RADAR controlled airspace, and there is that issue that we can't yet cover the whole world- so if someone is KNOWINGLY trying to disappear, there's options...
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              As I read all of this brainstorming...

              ...is it really THAT expensive to put up a few OLD FASHIONED, long-range radar antenna's to reflect back when you have a few ton's of stuff hanging in the middle of a bunch of air?
              I don't get it. Are you talking of traditional ground-based radar stations?

              Of which the "long range" ones have a range of what? 250 NM?

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #37
                I know there are some "tricks" to extend range a bit, but fundamentally the physics don't support it. Radio signals with a wavelength small enough to track an airplane basically travel line-of-sight and thus the horizon becomes a barrier.

                Even AWACS which is a pretty sophisticated military radar that's airborne and designed to track airborne targets (thus getting maximum advantage vs. horizon due to altitude) has a range of only about 200 miles.
                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                Eric Law

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by obmot View Post
                  It just boggles my mind a bit, frankly, that we landed men on the moon almost 50 years ago yet we still can't track aircraft here on Earth lol.
                  We can track aircraft, the question is who wants to pay for it. If Air Force One goes missing, I feel pretty confident they will know where to find it. The report that started this thread confirms that a cost-practical solution is available to track with more frequent intervals. The frequency of those intervals is mostly limited to cost.

                  The issue of 'rogue pilot' however introduces the next question: how autonomous should it be? If the crew can shut it down, it becomes worthless. If the crew can't shut it down, it might become hazardous. Is it more hazardous to have a powered system that can't be shut down than to have an airplane that can go missing due to 'rogue piloting'? I'm betting it is. So you would have to design an automous system with a very safe source of battery power to kick in once the system is isolated from the aircraft bus. Or give it it's own RAT generator. Now were talking expensive.

                  Of course, you could just strap an iPhone on the tail and use 'find my phone', right?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    I don't get it. Are you talking of traditional ground-based radar stations?

                    Of which the "long range" ones have a range of what? 250 NM?
                    #W$%@!

                    I was hoping it was closer to 500 miles (thus 1000 miles between stations-acknowledging I'm ignoring "the overlap factor")...and forgot that simply flying "very low" would be a great way to duck under a lot of it- with "very low" still giving you enough room to practice your stall recoveries if you were so inclined.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      We did land men on the moon - but there were periods of their trip that they were outside of radio coverage too

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by MCM View Post
                        We did land men on the moon - but there were periods of their trip that they were outside of radio coverage too
                        Yes, two periods to be more precise: While crossing the ionosphere during the re-entry, and whenever a big chunk of matter shadowed the radio signals (something like the Moon)

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Yes, two periods to be more precise: While crossing the ionosphere during the re-entry, and whenever a big chunk of matter shadowed the radio signals (something like the Moon)
                          I didn't see where MCM asked a question. Should he be cussing because you offered an explanation?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            2 points here:

                            1. like i said a long time ago, the solution is very cheap, simple, and available for the public to purchase--SPOT trackers. i don't give a rat's ass what all the idiots in the industry say about how it will cost so much to implement. it's cheap, it works, and has a VERY low failure rate. it's operated by super low power, so risk of fire is near zero. it can easily be modified to work on an aircraft without anyone having to spend billions of dollars.

                            2. long range radar has existed for many decades. ranges of 1200 miles are not uncommon such as with the US's SBX radar (hyper-accurate and hyper advanced phased array system). sure, each unit costs a pretty penny, $900,000,000 USD but if the international community were to mandate mid-ocean coverage and say, six units were needed to cover the most common airline routes, the costs could be recuperated very quickly by imposing a fee of $1.00 per ticket on every ticket sold on every commercial airline the initial costs would be recovered in less than two years. imposing a $0.50 charge on every ticket thereafter, would WAY more than cover the cos of staffing and maintaining these stations.

                            and of course, everyone is going to jump up and down and claim the expense is unnecessary since these disappearances are so rare. yet, in the grand scheme of things, since the cost is paid by pax @ 0.50/ticket, no one will ever feel it.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The low cost of developing a simple GPS receiver and position transmitter has never been in question. Iridium already have an aviation product for tracking. We all know these devices are around. There is a very real cost of fitting them to aircraft though, and a real cost for the data they use, and of developing and manning systems to track the planes.

                              Say you do need 6 units to cover the most common routes. At 900 million each, you're talking 5.4 BILLION dollars plus ongoing costs to solve exactly what? The most common airline routes? Because thats exactly what we're talking about with the disappearance of an aircraft most likely into an area that has about a dozen flights go within 1200 miles of it!

                              That sort of money would put you in the top 10 countries donations of foreign aid!

                              At that price point, yes, I'm going to jump up and down and say its unnecessary since the disappearances are so rare.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                as i expected....

                                worldwide there are rough;y 3,000,000,000 (yes, billion) commercial air tickets sold annually. $1 surcharge to start then reduce to $.50 after. no one would ever know.

                                for what you scream? same reason we invest billions in seat belts on aircraft. really stupid useless things except in the rare instance of severe turbulence, right?

                                how much was spent finding af447? how much will be spent finding mh370? how much was spent finding air asia?

                                as i said, the technology is here and it's cheap as chips. it's a sick, greedy world that needs to spend billions "developing" a way to attach a $300 device to a $300,000,000 aircraft. just plain sick.

                                and are you serious about data costs? really?????? spot costs $300 per year for a super plan that sends track points every 2.5 minutes. is $300 PER YEAR too much for an airline per plane? so for example,your position is that AA cannot afford (or shouldn't have to spend) a stinkin $195,000 per year to outfit their entire fleet?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X