Malaysian Airline loses contact with passenger airline

[RRxtar]

Originally Posted by EmperorIS

Hire someone to maintain it
Hire someone to implement it
Hire someone to monitor it
Hire someone to plan it
Hire someone to research it
Hire someone to program it to work with the plan
Hire someone to teach others how to use it

I'm sure the equipment is cheap, but as you can see the process is not.

All of this can be had, in a low volume civilian-developed and funded package, for $99/year


You're telling me no one has developed a system to implement into commercial airliners that sends an automated GPS signal thru a satellite to a data center, that costs less than an unreasonable amount?

[underscore]

^ you don't fall out of the sky if the things fucks up something else though. Sort out how much it would cost to test this device with every other critical system to ensure it doesn't cause interference, and for what? How many planes have been lost and never found in the last 5 years?

Originally Posted by RRxtar

Why the shit can I go buy a SPOT global GPS satallite transmitter for under a couple hundred bucks, but putting a GPS system in a commercial airliner costing 300 milliion dollars, is not in the budget?

I've gone over this before, it's not as simple as just tossing it in there. If it's done wrong, it makes the plane unsafe and kills more people. Even if they do it right, it just makes it easier to very, very rarely find a crashed plane where everyone is already dead anyways.

[RRxtar]

Im not saying take the SPOT system, and shove it in an airplane. But if they can privately develop that system, market it, and sell it to the public for a profit, why can't the aviation industry come up with something?

GPS tracking/transmitting is not some outrageous science fiction idea. It exists in seriously low cost, and wide spread varieties. Everywhere.

I mean, just think all of the magic that happens with shoving 400 people inside an aluminum tube, and shooting it thru the sky at over 500 miles an hour across the world. If we can figure out how to do this so affordably that a billion people do it every year, why cant we figure out how to track those tubes. Seriously, think about that. lol

edit:

you can even download a free app on your phone that will track and map a bunch of rednecks in 4x4s in the middle of the desert running the King of the Hammers race, in real time, for no reason other than so rednecks at home can follow along.

[jepho]

I would be interested in seeing the data from the engines if they did in fact run for another 4 hours after contact. If they are transmitting performance, speed, altitude etc like stated, one could go over the data to determine if the plane eventually decelerated...descended...etc in a controlled fashion. As if coming in for a landing... or falling out of the sky.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by RRxtar

Im not saying take the SPOT system, and shove it in an airplane. But if they can privately develop that system, market it, and sell it to the public for a profit, why can't the aviation industry come up with something?

GPS tracking/transmitting is not some outrageous science fiction idea. It exists in seriously low cost, and wide spread varieties. Everywhere.

I mean, just think all of the magic that happens with shoving 400 people inside an aluminum tube, and shooting it thru the sky at over 500 miles an hour across the world. If we can figure out how to do this so affordably that a billion people do it every year, why cant we figure out how to track those tubes. Seriously, think about that. lol

They could, but again they would have to test it with everything else to make sure it doesn't screw something up (and even then there's still a chance it could mess up). Even if it does pass that test, what good is it? Okay so you know the position of every plane, how often is that required? One plane is missing, one single plane, and you want a multimillion dollar system to be developed and tested. Now even if they go ahead and do that, what benefit is it? You now know where the one destroyed plane is a little bit sooner, and everyone is still dead.

And even after all that, the system can still fail. If the transponder for the ATC can fail/be shut off, this could be too.

[Phozy]

Will be on a flight tomorrow
Posted via RS Mobile

[JD¹³]

New reports are that communications systems were systematically shutdown very soon after takeoff, and that the engines were feeding data to satellites for four hours after the airliner went dark on radar. They're starting to search the Indian Ocean now, good luck.

My bet is a hijacking gone bad.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by RRxtar

GPS tracking/transmitting is not some outrageous science fiction idea. It exists in seriously low cost, and wide spread varieties. Everywhere.

This was addressed several pages back: http://www.revscene.net/forums/69336...ml#post8432695

you can even download a free app on your phone that will track and map a bunch of rednecks in 4x4s in the middle of the desert running the King of the Hammers race, in real time, for no reason other than so rednecks at home can follow along.

And how does it do that? Over 3G/4G. Which you don't have on a plane.

Next?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

My bet is a hijacking gone bad.

As opposed to a hijacking gone good?

[yray]

guess I'm a potential hijacker too




If you're pilot, you won't mind messing around on a sim for hours during your days off. I have a feeling that one of the pilots helped developed pmdg 777 or atleast was a beta tester.

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by Soundy

As opposed to a hijacking gone good?

At least with most hijackings in the past there has been an ability to negotiate or the opportunity for passengers/authorities to attempt to retake control either in the air or on the ground. With the Ethiopian Airlines scenario at least some people survived the ditch. When noone survives it's a truly worst case scenario. No hijacking is obviously good; poor choice of words on my part.

[bballguy]

Originally Posted by Soundy

As opposed to a hijacking gone good?

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[LUUUUUUUU]

Malaysia Airliner Communications Shut Down Separately: US Officials Say - ABC News

[CP.AR]

turning off a transponder doesn't make it disappear from the radar scope... it just hides the name; think of it as taking your name tag off. People can still see you, they just don't know what your name is

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by yray

gIf you're pilot, you won't mind messing around on a sim for hours during your days off. I have a feeling that one of the pilots helped developed pmdg 777 or atleast was a beta tester.

Well here's the other problem with this whole theory that the pilot was using a 777 simulator because he planned to hijack the plane: dude is already a 777 pilot... presumably fully trained, lots of stick time on the real thing... so why would having the simulator make taking over the plane any easier?

[Harvey Specter]

Originally Posted by yray

guess I'm a potential hijacker too




If you're pilot, you won't mind messing around on a sim for hours during your days off. I have a feeling that one of the pilots helped developed pmdg 777 or atleast was a beta tester.

What you flying? FSX? Are you on vatsim?

[yray]

@ soundy: because you can do things on the sim without raising suspicion ie: rehearsing his plans, messing around with the FMS. Even I think the pilot hijacking plans are BS, but its possible.

@Lord disick: This was like 7 years ago, fs9, didn't flew on vatsim back then since my comp was laggy as fuck. Lost my 150gb fs9 file when I got a new comp, don't fly as much nowadays.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by yray

@ soundy: because you can do things on the sim without raising suspicion ie: rehearsing his plans, messing around with the FMS.
.

You mean flight sims let you turn off your transponder and radio?

[yray]

^yep, you can do TCAS test too

PMDG 777 RELEASE WEEK - First Impressions - YouTube

cockpit starts at 9:00

[Gnieob]

As already stated before in this thread by other people, technologies do already exist for automatic GPS position reporting. This is called ADS-B. (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Mode B) On flight tracking websites such as flightaware or even apps like Flight Radar 24, when an aircraft is out of radar range ADS-B positioning information is used. Though not all aircraft are required by law to have the equipment installed, more and more are being equipped as it is now a requirement to fly in Australia and in the US and (I believe) the EU within the next 5 years. ADS-B cannot be turned off as it is hardwired on. The only option for pilots is to turn it into "emergency mode".

The media is as usual, taking things out of context. Turning off an aircraft's transponder does NOT "turn off a radar". If this happened then why would the US, Chinese, EU, and Russian militaries spend billions in developing radar invisible aircraft? The transponder's sole job is to insert a tidbit of data into the radar's return signal, which includes Altimetry, and a code that we call a "SSR Code". The code's only use is to match it up to the radar controller's database and put a name next to the aircraft's "blip" on the radar screen. As stated above by Amuro Ray, transponder malfunctions are not uncommon, and when it fails or is turned off the aircraft still appears on radar, just without it's "name tag".

With the Rolls Royce Engine Data, I know the following gets transmitted, among other things.
Engine N1, N2, N3 RPM, Exhaust gas temperatures, oil temps and pressures, vibration readings, fuel flow - basically the same information pilots have access to in their aircraft, but with more detail.
I'm sure other things get transmitted but keep in mind these are SNAPSHOTS ONLY. They are not real time information, and nobody looks like them unless the airline wants to look at them.

"communications systems" cannot be shut down, only ignored or tuned out. Think of your home phone. Keep in mind too that in the cruise very little communications occur the aircraft and anyone else. Aircraft nowadays fly so accurately and on pre-planned routes (which are filed with all the aviation authorities they pass thru) that we don't make any other calls than knock on the door to basically tell them we are here, and when we expect to leave their airspace.
Note: in the event of a complete communications failure, most country's regulations call for the aircraft to fly it's pre-planned route.

[Rich Sandor]

Originally Posted by hud 91gt

The RR info is interesting. I've heard airlines do have this information, but I really have no information about it.

The home cockpit thing I find a little strange. The guy has enough experience to be a captain of a 777. No small feat. Yet he has one at home to practice on as well? Either, incompetent, or just plane crazy. Ok, this comment was probably not needed.

Wait and see, but there is no doubt, this shit is getting crazy.

Pretty much every pilot I know, including myself, practices at home on the simulator. Some are more hardcore into it than others. My experience is that those who are hardcore into it with the full cockpit are the most competent and technically knowledgeable of all pilots.

Fuck, my best friend sent me a pic of him flying an A320 over Peru on Xplanes on his laptop, while he was flying a REAL A320 in the same area!!

[Rich Sandor]

Originally Posted by lowside67

I realize this, but the plane is not designed to ever have that transmitter turned off. If that is not supposed to be able to be turned off, there is no reason to believe why the ones from the engine wouldn't also be able to be turned off.

It doesn't actually fix anything to just add more transmitters if they can be turned off, and if they are going to be added and not able to be turned off, why not skip adding them and just make the main transmitter unable to be disabled?

Either way it doesn't fix anything to simply add more transmitters...

Mark

Pretty much every system on an a/c can be somehow disabled via the circuit breakers. It has to be. If an electrical component starts drawing too much power it can start a fire. That's why you have circuit breakers or fuses. They need to be able to be replaced or reset in flight. That means they can also be pulled on purpose. I don't see any way around this.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Rich Sandor

Fuck, my best friend sent me a pic of him flying an A320 over Peru on Xplanes on his laptop, while he was flying a REAL A320 in the same area!!

Ok that is pretty nuts!

[Harvey Specter]

I really don't see a big deal about the pilot flying at home on a homemade flight simulator. He was flying since the early 80's so I doubt he would need a simulator to sharpen his skills, I'm sure he knew flight controls like the back of his hand. Now if he had been flying on a actual simulator outside of work than I guess you could question why he was doing that.

[hud 91gt]

Edited. Car forum, getting off topic! lol