Once again. I can probably say I am one of few people on this board that actually has enough experience to know a little bit of what is going on. I fly the things, I should know. I've seen a few crash sites up close and personal. I've seen debris fields, and carnage an aircraft can do to solid earth. I have many colleagues/friends that have passed away (I count 10, from 3 different incidents from 737's to 172's).

The technology in aviation is decades behind the rest of the world. If you don't think there is technology to send information via satellite back to a home base you are so wrong. It just costs money. If anyone has used a Satellite phone in the bush, you know what it costs. Most overseas aircraft have them nowadays. Thankfully the airline I work for is in the process of installing sat/gps on the last few overseas aircraft we have, so we at least have some sort on communication throughout the flight. We use it every day. I will use it today when I fly to Tokyo. The next step is to get it to automatically send GPS coordinates and system information back to home base. Our dispatch office has the ability to follow our aircraft on their computer screen. Why is this not implemented everywhere?

General aviation, recreational snowmobilers, backcountry skiers use a device called "Spot". It is basically a GPS transmitter, which sends GPS coordinates back home every few minutes. Anyone with the correct web address can follow their loved one, and get an update every few minutes. Did I mention this thing is like ~$100? Why is this not implemented everywhere? Rules and regulations are decades behind…..

^That spot trace device is pretty cool.

I will definitely look into getting one

Here is the link for their website;
http://www.findmespot.ca/en/

Regs aside, what's to stop one of the flight crew from just tossing one of these things in their travel bag or even in a pocket when they board for their shift?

Nothing, except their wallet. Oh and Transport Canada's law of turning off all sending and receiving devices :p

The reality of it is. The point of an airline is not to get people safely from point A to B. It is a business. It is there to make money. The execs, and the share holders. Sure, an impeccable safety record probably means this money can continue to come in for a long period of time. But life is all about risk management. Technology is there to increase safety, but this is going to cost money. The airlines themselves will not push to increase regulations, as that would cost money. That is the job of the worlds governing bodies. The governing bodies won't change the regulations until something horrible happens. Generally costing the lives of good people. Perhaps something like this incident.

I don't have a fancy degree, just a college diploma from a tiny little college. But it doesn't take a whole lot of book smarts to figure this out. The technology is there. Someone has to act on it.

For those scared of flying. This is not here to scare or intimidate anyone. It's just a fact of life, that can be seen in any industry. Flying is incredibly safe. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't. But there is always room for improvement, and it's in everyones dreams that it could be perfect. I'm happy to say, I am very comfortable in the work atmosphere that I am in. I feel safe, and fairly well regulated. The fact of the matter is. It could be even better.

if what you say is true, then I hope technology does catch up, but I have a feeling that will take at least a decade before any real change happens? I just hope the airlines act faster than that. Also most likely those fees will be passed on to consumers.

We also have to keep in mind that in a lot of rural or poor countries they may not be able to afford such technologies perhaps.

I wonder how many businesses out there are still running off of Windows XP.

Wrong thread

lol wat

I find it absolutely unbelievable that an aircraft can just "vanish" in this day and age, it's straight out of a movie. So much tracking, so much info, and yet just vanish. Amazing.

Relevant Randy over here...

Part of the "problem", if you want to look at it that way, is also that in the complex systems that you're dealing with here, you can't just chuck in the latest tech and let'er rip. It's not like your car where you can just rip out your stock tape deck and hook a new DVD nav system. New tech has to be tested extensively to ensure it won't cause problems with other, more critical systems... that it will work reliably itself (nothing like putting in a new system "that will save lives" and then have to explain afterward that it didn't work because of something nobody thought of before)... so on, and so forth.

Then once you've perfected it, the various regulatory bodies have to test it again to their own satisfaction, and sign off on it.

By that time you're into it to for major coin, not just for your own R&D, but for the regulatory testing (oh yes, the manufacturer pays for all that too). Now you have to try to sell it to the airlines for a high enough price to cover your own costs, and they have to factor in their own costs to install it in their fleet as well.

Like hud says, now risk management comes into it for the airline - if you're the airline, you're thinking sure, it MAY let me track and find a plane that mysteriously disappears from radar, but how often do planes simply vanish into thin air? We have a half-dozen governments now looking for that plane, those search costs aren't coming out of my pocket, so what's my incentive to pay for this gadget? Besides, even if it does help me find the wreckage, the plane is still down; I still have to replace it.

Somewhere down the road, regulators MAY require it to be installed, but at that point the tech is probably a half-dozen years old or more, which the way things advance today makes it pretty much ancient compared to what you can buy off the shelf at Wal-Mart.

Lol sorry I thought I was in the airplane thread
Posted via RS Mobile

Sounds speaks the truth. I'd thank but I'm mobile.
Posted via RS Mobile

wut

He is agreeing with soundy, two posts earlier, but can't thank the post because there is no thank/fail function on mobile. Not exactly rocket science.

Mark

Still nothing! Not even a toilet seat, a panel of sorts or a seat cushion. Really eerie feeling..

god the density of some people!

'wut' do you think (and well explained above)

What I have thought too.

wut

I was going to add an example to that post, and forgot: we recently installed a GPS fleet tracking system into some brand new Hino delivery trucks - they transmit the truck's location via 3G service. Followed the GPS manufacturer's instructions for wiring them in and placing them (they even had specific wiring instructions for these trucks, showing what wires to tie into).

In the first truck, because of differences in the under-dash layout, the receiver had to be mounted close to the vehicle's ECU... took a lot of phone troubleshooting with both the GPS manufacturer and Hino techs to figure out that the 3G signal was causing the trucks to intermittently not start properly, and relocating the receiver by a foot or so cleared it up.

So... yeah. This is why extensive testing and re-testing must be done to certify tech for use on a plane... and re-done for every different design of plane.

I am currently working on a school project with a rep from Siemens. Actually, he is working on another project for my school but my project is somewhat similar so I go bug the Siemens rep and ask for help. He was giving me a tutorial on how to use the Siemens software running on his computer with Win XP and the first question I asked him was why was it on Win XP.

This is because Windows XP is proven to work as expected. Since it is an aging OS, most companies know all there is to know about it when they develop their software, making their software as robust as possible.

I was surprised actually, I would've expected a multi-billion dollar company that has operates in all things electronics to be up to date on the OS. The Siemens rep told me they're slowly adapting to Windows 7 now. But as of now, they still use Win XP.

There are a lot of examples of legacy software use. Things like banking networks and ATMs are often on older OS's simply because, like shenmecar mentioned, it works/ed well enough to deploy to the thousands of devices that rely on said software.

Government computers are also notorious for it. IIRC, the US DOD just decided to move off of a special build of XP in favour of a custom UNIX/Linux OS.

For governments, there is a lot of red-tape/work involved with respect to hardware/software upgrades. Especially when sensitive work is involved, companies can often wait many years/software cycles before they're able to ensure that their required software works with a new OS.

i dont think anyone mentioned this as a scenario but maybe the US Navy or any other Navy intentionally/unintentionally shot it down and now there tryin to cover it up...
Posted via RS Mobile

why would they cover it up? how would they do so? the us government isn't an all knowing all powerful entity.

so much logic fail in your post. as stated in this thread often times it can take years to find a crash site.

you don't accidentally shoot down a commercial airliner. you don't shoot it down on purpose because it's a complete non threat to US interests. it's not like this flight was flying over america.

but a weak minded individual will always seek the laziest scenario. oh the big bad evil gubberment done blowed dem up out der sky!