absolutely. but it helps if you have somewhat of a rough estimate of location.
Slightly hyperbolic no? Off topic and i think there is a thread on it but Mick calculated that getting all data recorded would require so many hard drives that you could pile them up and make another pyramid.
/sigh That is what my link is.
Answering my own question: Inmarsat do have the ping data from pre-flight to last ping. Unfortunately, it raises yet more questions.
There is evidence of a partial handshake between the aircraft and ground station at 0019 UTC. At this time this transmission is not understood and is subject to further ongoing work.
No response was received from the aircraft at 0115 UTC, when the ground earth station sent the next log on / log off message. This indicates that the aircraft was no longer logged on to the network.
Therefore, sometime between 0011 UTC and 0115 UTC the aircraft was no longer able to communicate with the ground station. This is consistent with the maximum endurance of the aircraft.
The key phrase being "estimate the plane's possible flight path."
This simply adds another mode for failure of the transponders. You now have the possibility that if there is a failure of the airspeed indication system its going to cause loss of transponders and therefore loss of SSR returns to ATC.You're still in control, just don't get to take off speed.What good reason is there to turn it off in flight?
Adding.. just make it so there is control except beyond a certain airspeed or altitude.
It wouldn't be an easy thing to implement (not specific to the airspeed but just a general tracking) but to be honest, the repeated excuses for why it shouldn't, is disturbing.. but off topic.
Its already continuously tracked while within SSR coverage and it IS odd when that return disappears. The aircraft CAN now still be tracked by primary radars unless it descends below their coverage, which would likely also be below SSR coverage as well.
With all the engineering that goes into building a modern airliner, I find it hard to believe that there can't be a better way of knowing (generally) where a plane is at all times. To imply that there will always be a risk of not knowing where a plane is at, is the disturbing part.
No terrorist groups claimed responsibility and it would be very hard to hit a target at night. I'm leaning towards pilot suicide.
Such a system would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be developed as a terrestrial system. That leaves out all terrestrial radars and must be a satellite system. Yes I see no engineering reason why this could not be built but it would be very expensive and, for whole plant coverage, require a lot of satellites. It would require at least one secure downlink site( and use satellite to satellite data relay). More likely it would send tracking data to ATC handling that aircraft.
Tell that to the families that don't know where their loved ones are.
What time would it have been when it arrived on target if that target was Perth , Australia?
There are a lot of things in many different and diverse areas, that can, technically, be done but aren't due to the cost.
The hijacking transponder code used to be ' secret'. You can now find that on Wikipedia as well as how to change codes without momentarily switching through the number 7500.
What if they never find the plane, does the terrorist group never claim responsibility for making the plane disappear? Seems to me like a good time to claim and then poke a little fun that no one can find it. Just my opinion.
I just read excuses. I am having a hard time grasping that anyone can be okay with the always and forever risk that a plane can just disappear.
Yes, it remains to be seen. If its true there is no compelling reason to take credit any time soon.
Why not? Its been that way since the first aircraft capable of flying beyond the horizen. Radar wasn't invented until the 1940s. Secondary radar for civilian aircraft, the 1950s. Satellite communications began in the 1960s but could not be effectively used for such a system as you propose until quite recently.
Have you calculated the cost of implemented a system like this? Seems you are assuming this would cost more than it is worth when nothing has even been proposed.
No reason not to either. Like I said what if they never find the plane, do they never claim? How long do they wait to claim if they don't find it?
I would be happy to pay a little more on my flight to ensure my loved ones will know where the hell I am if something goes wrong. Guess you're not?
I don't know. I didn't do it.
So what your saying is to use GPS to track planes at all times we need to launch a whole new set of GPS satellites instead of just using the existing ones?
Average cost of a new car in 1994 was $12500.
Yes, GPS satellites do not and cannot receive signals from the receivers on aircraft. It would require a complete rebuild of the entire GPS fleet of satellites to enable them to relay the incredible amount of data this would require.
Why?
I would stand in more lines too to make sure im not getting on a flight with a terrorist with a fake passport that was laid over from a lax country. this whole situation is ridiculous.
Except now we have to worry about pilots too.
I find this just as disturbing since I never said anything of the such nor did I imply it. Making excuses for why a plane can't always be tracked is disturbing.
So all these truck tracking services had to launch their own satellites?
at least they aren't drunk anymore! ; )
