Fallout from MH 370

I definitely hear whining. ;)

Were you working on gathering money to donate to the airlines to fix this problem long before one airliner went missing, or is it just popular now that the unlikely happened?

I think we need an "Awareness" campaign. "Occupy Ocean!"

Didn't know the airlines were a charity that needed help. Times must be tough. Would you have this same exact attitude if your entire family, except you was on that plane? Would you be OK not knowing what happened to them, or where they were, given the otherwise nearly spotless record of the airlines? Be real honest now, not internet honest.
 
Didn't know the airlines were a charity that needed help. Times must be tough. Would you have this same exact attitude if your entire family, except you was on that plane? Would you be OK not knowing what happened to them, or where they were, given the otherwise nearly spotless record of the airlines? Be real honest now, not internet honest.


No I wouldn't be "OK" but I wouldn't see any need to forcibly upgrade the world's airliners for one freak event. I also know from having been out on it, that the ocean is one frakking huge place, and there are lots and lots of people lost at sea every year.

Airliners have a stellar track record in this regard within modern times, and not that awful before my time. We've just gotten used to it, is all.

There is a point of diminishing returns, and forcibly upgrading airliner tracking is well beyond it.

Plus, you didn't answer the question. Were you concerned about this prior to the event, or is it just popular to say so now? Were you doing anything about it? It smells like a popular "cause" to me, that'll have a few distraught people forcing a whole lot more rational people, to pay for something used a few times in a decade at most. If even that many.

I knew from the above mentioned general knowledge of the oceans that the possibility existed that people in any vessel over, under, or on top of the ocean might go missing. Happens quite frequently actually.

I wasn't so concerned about it that I was warning friends away from International flight. Or even against yachting, which a couple do.

Don't think I've changed that opinion because one airliner disappeared. If we see ten or more in a year, check back. I might then think the massive cost of all the searches justifies it.

Sad for the loved ones, yes. Worth re-vamping an entire world's aircraft tracking over oceans at great expense? Not really needed nor desired. Doesn't matter if it's sad or not.
 
Were you concerned about this prior to the event, or is it just popular to say so now? Were you doing anything about it?

Can't say that I was concerned. That's because I assumed that in the 21st century, losing an airliner full of people really wasn't possible. I was wrong. I'll bet a lot of people are quite surprised by this. If terrorists didn't take over and steal this plane, they now know that you sure can. Piece of cake. Fly over the ocean and you're gone.

Sad for the loved ones, yes. Worth re-vamping an entire world's aircraft tracking over oceans at great expense? Not really needed nor desired. Doesn't matter if it's sad or not.
Well, there you have it, so I'll give it a rest. The Pilots of America have spoken. A box of tennis shoes rolling over interstate 80 is more valuable cargo than people in an airliner.

You know, it might actually be a clever sales pitch for international airlines in the future. "Fly with us! We actually know where our planes are at all times, even over the ocean."
 
Mandatory 406 ELTs on airliners with their own self-contained power source which will automatically go off by themselves if the pilot doesn't hit a "snooze alarm" button every few minutes to prove someone is alive and awake in the cockpit (e.g. a type of dead-man's switch, must periodically keep deactivating the countdown timer to keep it from setting off the ELT when the timer hits zero). Hefty fines for ATP pilots who accidentally let their ELTs go off due to forgetting, being pre-occupied, whatever.

Yeah, I know such an idea stinks to high heaven, but is just the kind of thing that a government bureaucracy would come up with and ram down the airline companies' and ATP pilots' throats.

Fatigue is a big problem. Interrupting pilot's naps while on AP is not going to help. :goofy:
 
Last edited:
You know, it might actually be a clever sales pitch for international airlines in the future. "Fly with us! We actually know where our planes are at all times, even over the ocean."

So you can track them in real-time as they are hijacked and taken to their death in the middle of the Indian Ocean!!!
 
So you can track them in real-time as they are hijacked and taken to their death in the middle of the Indian Ocean!!!

Assuming the hijacker doesn't just turn that system off, like all the others.
 
Another fact is that people are deceived into thinking the ocean and the world are much smaller than they actually are and that our technology somehow eliminates that vastness. Even if MH370 had been equipped with this real time data streaming it would still take a ship a week to get to that spot in the ocean, there would still be the bad weather and there would still be no guarantee that we'd ever find it.
 
Can't say that I was concerned. That's because I assumed that in the 21st century, losing an airliner full of people really wasn't possible. I was wrong. I'll bet a lot of people are quite surprised by this. If terrorists didn't take over and steal this plane, they now know that you sure can. Piece of cake. Fly over the ocean and you're gone.

Well, there you have it, so I'll give it a rest. The Pilots of America have spoken. A box of tennis shoes rolling over interstate 80 is more valuable cargo than people in an airliner.

You know, it might actually be a clever sales pitch for international airlines in the future. "Fly with us! We actually know where our planes are at all times, even over the ocean."

Your argument might carry more weight if you used facts and logic instead of internet forum hyperbole.
 
Can't say that I was concerned. That's because I assumed that in the 21st century, losing an airliner full of people really wasn't possible. I was wrong. I'll bet a lot of people are quite surprised by this. If terrorists didn't take over and steal this plane, they now know that you sure can. Piece of cake. Fly over the ocean and you're gone.

Well, there you have it, so I'll give it a rest. The Pilots of America have spoken. A box of tennis shoes rolling over interstate 80 is more valuable cargo than people in an airliner.

You know, it might actually be a clever sales pitch for international airlines in the future. "Fly with us! We actually know where our planes are at all times, even over the ocean."


Ignorance and surprise aren't much of a rational way to determine the needs of an industry that never promised real-time updates and tracking of transportation vessels.

Your assertion that an airline *could* offer it, is sound though. The flying public can decide if they want to pay for it at the ticket counter.

I would assert that you're wasting money, but hey... If you're that worried about it, knock yourself out.

Knowing where the bodies are, doesn't usually fix the root-cause problem, other than it makes the black box easier to locate.

The "tennis balls" outrage is misplaced. Many trucking industry companies do compete by having real-time tracking and their customers are willing to pay for it. There are plenty of freight companies that don't have tracking also. All depends on what you want to pay.

Most trucking companies added the tracking to deal with wayward drivers and constant fines for bad logbooks, as well as integrated maintenance messages from on-board systems, which is a large part of data systems from airliners also.

The airplane tells someone it needs a mechanic at the next stop. Tracking over oceans was never a mandatory system design requirement.

I'm sure that if there were a way to nickle and dime people with an offer when buying your airline ticket that said, "would you like to purchase a dead body tracking device?", the airlines would have already paired up with a technology partner and it'd be on the booking website.

Not kidding. They're an industry willing to charge $6 to watch TV for less than two hours.

"Sir, I see you purchased the body tracking option. Please hold out your wrist so we can clamp this on. Please note that in the fine print we are absolved of all liability for this system working in the event of fire, high G load shock forces to the device on your wrist, or accidental amputation of your tracked arm from your torso. Thank you for purchasing the dead body tracking option, and enjoy your flight. If anyone else would like a dead body tracking wrist device, the purser will be by momentarily with the credit card reader."

As far as the terrorism comments go, there's still holes in airport security worldwide that one could drive a Mack truck through. Only a small sub-set of them have been effectively stopped. Anyone dead set on harming an airliner, still can, fairly easily.
 
I don't see any way to avoid a change. The concept of flight tracking is integral to air carrier operations and has been since forever. Dispatchers are jointly responsible for the flight along with the captain. ACARS is only the latest greatest improvement to the system which has evolved with technology and been spurred on by tragedies over the decades where planes went missing and survivors huddled in the cold rain waiting to be rescued. Or ate the dead even. Now we see ACARS isn't the perfect solution either, so it will be improved. The push is under way already:

dtuuri
 
For what it is worth, I don't see why real time tracking can't be done. I don't know what the costs would be, but since the infrastructure already exists, (I think) I wouldn't think it would be all that much.
 
The "tennis balls" outrage is misplaced. Many trucking industry companies do compete by having real-time tracking and their customers are willing to pay for it. There are plenty of freight companies that don't have tracking also. All depends on what you want to pay.

Not really. While most freight companies of any significant size (say, 25 trucks on up) will have tracking, VERY few of them expose it to their customers. It's there for the convenience of the freight companies.

Also, it's not like the cost of tracking would make a significant difference in the price of a ticket. Let's take a look at mainline United as an example. According to Airline Pilot Central, they own 703 airplanes. Using SeatGuru to find the number of seats on each type and assuming 2.5 flights/day average for the narrow bodies and 4 flights/5 days for the wide bodies, United flies almost exactly 250,000 passenger-legs per day. If we assume the cost to equip each airplane is $100,000 and that it'd cost a total of $100,000 per month for the satellite data bandwidth, over a 10-year timespan it'd take a whopping nine cents per passenger leg to pay for the satellite tracking.

So this whole "cost" outrage is misplaced too. There's no reason we shouldn't be doing this.

Signed,

Your local data geek.
 
While I agree the price is low and it is entirely feasible to equip airliners with this technology, its just another thing that can be turned off or sabotaged.
 
I'm not arguing this on an expense basis, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't going to accomplish anything. It isn't going to solve any perceived problem and in the primary case (MH370) being used to goad people into it, it would not have made any difference. That airplane went to a place where nobody ever goes, this is not in any sense a "normal" mishap. Even if it had been tracked it doesn't guarantee you'd ever find it out there.

You are trying to find a way to prevent something that has already happened and isn't going to happen again. There's no way to do that.
 
That airplane went to a place where nobody ever goes, this is not in any sense a "normal" mishap. Even if it had been tracked it doesn't guarantee you'd ever find it out there.

Both statements are true. However you would have had a place to actually start looking, rather than suspecting that it is in that ocean somewhere. Maybe.

You are trying to find a way to prevent something that has already happened and isn't going to happen again. There's no way to do that.

Well, there is no guarantee that it won't happen again.

But the point is that real time tracking technology exists. Why not use it?
 
I'm not arguing this on an expense basis, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't going to accomplish anything. It isn't going to solve any perceived problem and in the primary case (MH370) being used to goad people into it, it would not have made any difference.
It would not have made any difference in the fact that all these people are dead, but it would certainly save the searchers expense as well as cutting down on these wild theories such as it being hidden in a hangar somewhere. They might also be able to get some insight into why it crashed. Nobody knew the details about what happened to Air France until they examined the CVR and the FDR.
 
But the point is that real time tracking technology exists.
I wonder about it.
Is there a tracking technology that will be 100% impervious to human's attempt to disable it.
 
"We cannot let this opportunity to start a new project in our departments get away!" LOL. Tech empire building at its finest.
 
Not really. While most freight companies of any significant size (say, 25 trucks on up) will have tracking, VERY few of them expose it to their customers. It's there for the convenience of the freight companies.



Also, it's not like the cost of tracking would make a significant difference in the price of a ticket. Let's take a look at mainline United as an example. According to Airline Pilot Central, they own 703 airplanes. Using SeatGuru to find the number of seats on each type and assuming 2.5 flights/day average for the narrow bodies and 4 flights/5 days for the wide bodies, United flies almost exactly 250,000 passenger-legs per day. If we assume the cost to equip each airplane is $100,000 and that it'd cost a total of $100,000 per month for the satellite data bandwidth, over a 10-year timespan it'd take a whopping nine cents per passenger leg to pay for the satellite tracking.



So this whole "cost" outrage is misplaced too. There's no reason we shouldn't be doing this.



Signed,



Your local data geek.


Your estimate on satellite bandwidth is a least an order of magnitude off. If not way more. The aircraft side cost is also off by at least $200K by the time you certify it.

You need something in a low orbit or you need a really high gain antenna that can track a GEO on every aircraft worldwide.

You need a satellite cluster with enough spare transponders and bandwidth or store and forward capability / or bounce through another satellite capability, to handle all of the aircraft in their combined footprint over the entire globe without outages.

You're talking a cluster the size of GPS and then multiply it by whatever factor needed to handle say, the entire Easter seaboard at crunch time in uplinks.

There will still need to be store and wait capability on board the aircraft for brief outages.

And it's still going to fail.

Stuff like SPOT only works because it's limited in number of transmitters and using leftover transponders on a failed satellite cluster intended for a different purpose. The immense losses incurred by the insurers allows that system to exist.

As far as the trucks go, it wasn't me who claimed that tennis balls on I-80 being better tracked than people in airliners was wrong. I just explained the economics of it.

But if you're going to claim data geek status, you'd better start with better estimates on cost of a satellite system to cover every airliner worldwide. I don't think you're even close.

You could write off launch costs if the cluster existed, but the one that comes closest is Iridium, another failed system economically, that's now mostly sub-contracted out to the U.S. Military.

The transponders for SPOT can't handle it. They're not even global coverage. Iridium is mostly used up bandwidth-wise. Which satellites do you propose handle all that traffic?

Maybe there's enough transponder time via a rag tag mix of GEOs but that'd take some spendy gear on top of the aircraft... and still wouldn't have coverage far north and far south.
 
I'm not arguing this on an expense basis, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't going to accomplish anything. It isn't going to solve any perceived problem and in the primary case (MH370) being used to goad people into it, it would not have made any difference. That airplane went to a place where nobody ever goes, this is not in any sense a "normal" mishap. Even if it had been tracked it doesn't guarantee you'd ever find it out there.

You are trying to find a way to prevent something that has already happened and isn't going to happen again. There's no way to do that.

If MH370 had tracking, not only would we have known pretty soon after ATC lost contact where it was and which way it was going, someone could have intercepted it and quite possibly seen some important evidence before it came back to earth (a la Helios 522), AND we would know where to look for it so we could determine the cause of the incident and possibly prevent it in the future (you know, the whole reason we investigate accidents in the first place).

And there is no way to know whether it will happen again, but chances are it will, since I can easily go on Wikipedia and find 47 airplanes that disappeared that were either on airline flights or on airline type aircraft on routine (non-record-attempt or combat) missions... MH370 is just the latest.

It would not have made any difference in the fact that all these people are dead, but it would certainly save the searchers expense as well as cutting down on these wild theories such as it being hidden in a hangar somewhere. They might also be able to get some insight into why it crashed. Nobody knew the details about what happened to Air France until they examined the CVR and the FDR.

This is an excellent point... And frankly, I would bet that the amount of money spent looking for MH370 will end up being enough that we could have equipped all the world's airliners with simple tracking systems.

And, considering the 777's nearly spotless safety record, it'd sure be nice to know an actual cause rather than just chalking it up to "we lost the airplane."
 
Your estimate on satellite bandwidth is a least an order of magnitude off. If not way more. The aircraft side cost is also off by at least $200K by the time you certify it.

Okay. We'll assume $1 million per month in bandwidth and $200K/airplane install cost then. Twenty-eight cents per passenger leg.

You need something in a low orbit or you need a really high gain antenna that can track a GEO on every aircraft worldwide.

You need a satellite cluster with enough spare transponders and bandwidth or store and forward capability / or bounce through another satellite capability, to handle all of the aircraft in their combined footprint over the entire globe without outages.

You're talking a cluster the size of GPS and then multiply it by whatever factor needed to handle say, the entire Easter seaboard at crunch time in uplinks.

It's called ACARS, and it's already there. I bet you could make a software change and have most airplanes send out a ping every 10 minutes or so (or piggyback the location onto a ping that's already happening) for little to no extra infrastructure investment.

As far as the trucks go, it wasn't me who claimed that tennis balls on I-80 being better tracked than people in airliners was wrong. I just explained the economics of it.

Except you explained it wrong. :rolleyes:

But if you're going to claim data geek status, you'd better start with better estimates on cost of a satellite system to cover every airliner worldwide. I don't think you're even close.

Even if YOUR estimates are off by a factor of four it'd still only be a buck a leg. The point is that it's in the realm of noise when it comes to ticket prices.
 
Well, if we knew where it crashed I suppose that would have saved a lot of money and resources in terms of the search that I assume is ongoing. I have no idea of the economics of it but if real time tracking could be used to save money over the long term then I see the point.

But, unless I'm missing something, I don't see an advantage to passenger safety and therefore don't see it as something to worry about.
 
It would not have made any difference in the fact that all these people are dead, but it would certainly save the searchers expense as well as cutting down on these wild theories such as it being hidden in a hangar somewhere. They might also be able to get some insight into why it crashed. Nobody knew the details about what happened to Air France until they examined the CVR and the FDR.


Search expense: Drop in the bucket compared to a tracking system to meet the requirements of worldwide commercial aviation. Plus, assets will be drained down and slowly called off if nothing found. Fixed single event cost using already purchased assets vs ongoing massive cost and a new system.

Wild theories: No one in charge actually cares. There's people who believe all airliners are equipped with mind-altering chemtrail sprayers, too. And that there's lite green men stashed at Area 51. Basing a decision to build a huge tracking system off of morons making up fairy tales on the Internet isn't sound logic.

Insight into why: Good if you can get it. Not mandatory. AF showed the world the pilots decided not to be pilots that day. Wasn't all that useful to prevent future rectal-cranial inversion syndrome events.

You know how many people in the U.S. would know about the missing Malaysian airliner or care in the slightest, if we didn't have a 24/7 "news" cycle and had to read about it in a newspaper or see it crammed into the middle of a single 1 hour evening newscast? Not many. Certainly not many would be having a mass emotional panic attack over the current state of over-ocean airliner tracking.

It was only six decades ago that it took days to get information from a war on one continent to the people of another.

The masses haven't adjusted emotionally or matured enough yet when it comes to the always-on, covers most of the planet, news cycle that has to repeat stories for days on end to not overload people with that much "real" news and to keep their news gathering costs as low as possible.

"People still go missing. It's a big planet." and then "Goodnight, we will update you whenever we hear something." Probably doesn't work out too well for CNN's business model.
 
I wonder about it.
Is there a tracking technology that will be 100% impervious to human's attempt to disable it.

A good example of the shear absurdity of much of this. Like the question posed: "How come they are able to switch off the transponder?" Are we not going to trust the guy to have an OFF switch on his transponder yet let him fly the airplane? Really, does that make any sense at all?

We are talking nonsense here.
 
It was only six decades ago that it took days to get information from a war on one continent to the people of another.
This is not six decades ago. People don't go anywhere without a cell phone. Then they have a need to be in constant touch with each other. Times change. There will be people demanding this technology. They know they can get OnStar in their cars, so it's incomprehensible to them why an airliner is not tracked.
 
Okay. We'll assume $1 million per month in bandwidth and $200K/airplane install cost then. Twenty-eight cents per passenger leg.







It's called ACARS, and it's already there. I bet you could make a software change and have most airplanes send out a ping every 10 minutes or so (or piggyback the location onto a ping that's already happening) for little to no extra infrastructure investment.





I bet you're wrong. Here's Inmarsat's coverage maps.

http://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/our-satellites/our-coverage/

ACARS augments satellite with hundreds and hundreds of ground stations to handle the message load. To do it entirely satellite would obviously mean outrageous expense, since otherwise they'd already have shut down the terrestrial system and all the telecom links to support it, and moved ACARS entirely to satellite already. You don't even have to do the math, they've already done it for you.

You like digging through airline financial reports: What's the current Airinc costs? I bet it's WAY higher than $1M a month.

I also know they wouldn't be doing it if the maintenance data being received wasn't saving an equal number of AOG missed legs or it wouldn't have been worth buying the system.


Except you explained it wrong. :rolleyes:

I said they primarily use the tracking for their business purposes and it had to make fiscal sense to do it for maintenance or other reasons or because they chose to publish location information.

If that's "wrong" I really don't care.

Even if YOUR estimates are off by a factor of four it'd still only be a buck a leg. The point is that it's in the realm of noise when it comes to ticket prices.


Think you're going to find it's way higher.

AIRINC is probably doing the math right now though, ready to accept cash and writing up the limitations.

You do realize there was an older data system on board that pings every hour and can't be shut off easily, right? It attempts to contact an Inmarsat bird each hour no matter what. I've heard no mention of the searchers searching near the last "hour ping" from that device, which means it had failed in some fashion.

Anything you put on board has the ability to fail. Including your $0.28 per ticket system. Make it $5, it can and will still fail pretty regularly when attempting to bounce through a GEO from a patch antenna on the roof of an airliner.

I bet AIRINC doesn't publish their packet loss ratio for either system. Multiplying the ping rate by six and adding length to the message to include Lat/Long in every one, won't make that ratio better. It'll make it worse.
 
This is not six decades ago. People don't go anywhere without a cell phone. Then they have a need to be in constant touch with each other. Times change. There will be people demanding this technology. They know they can get OnStar in their cars, so it's incomprehensible to them why an airliner is not tracked.


My OnStar doesn't work. It used AMPS which was shut down quite a while ago. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I loathe that my job requires always on data and phone.

Hey just had a thought. Someone could make a killing renting PLBs in airport terminals with intercontinental destinations to the easily and ridiculously scared.

That system works and it's ready to go.

Note: Kent didn't use his geek analysis skills to estimate the probability that any particular international flight would go down without a trace. I'd like to see that analysis.
 
My OnStar doesn't work. It used AMPS which was shut down quite a while ago. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I loathe that my job requires always on data and phone.

Hey just had a thought. Someone could make a killing renting PLBs in airport terminals with intercontinental destinations to the easily and ridiculously scared.

That system works and it's ready to go.

Note: Kent didn't use his geek analysis skills to estimate the probability that any particular international flight would go down without a trace. I'd like to see that analysis.
Just telling you what people are going to demand now. It's already happening.

As the search continues for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, international airlines hope to develop a better way to track planes before the end of the year.

Tony Tyler, CEO of the International Air Transport Association, which represents 240 airlines worldwide, said Tuesday at the group's operations conference that any plan should be coordinated through the International Civil Aviation Organization, rather than settling for regional solutions.

"In our eagerness to move this along, we must also ensure that prudent decisions are made in line with global standards," Tyler said in Kuala Lumpur, where the conference is coincidentally being held where the investigation is headquartered. "I have no doubt that governments are eager to come to a conclusion and take action as soon as possible."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...irlines-satellite-tracking-accidents/7155071/
 
So let the airlines acquiesce to their mob-mentality and intelligence level customers. I suppose your private jet customers could demand the same. All fine by me if it's handled privately and not turned into some giant government waste laden system like ADS-B.
 
So let the airlines acquiesce to their mob-mentality and intelligence level customers. I suppose your private jet customers could demand the same. All fine by me if it's handled privately and not turned into some giant government waste laden system like ADS-B.
What's wrong with ADS-B. Or is it the government aspect you oppose?

Here's NavCanada's proposal. NavCanada is private.

What’s Next
NAV CANADA has entered into a joint venture with Iridium Communications, called Aireon, which will expand air traffic surveillance to the entire planet by installing ADS-B receivers on Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites.

We are not only a partner in the joint venture but have signed a contract to be the first customer of Aireon. Initially we intend to focus on incorporating ADS-B surveillance into the management of busy oceanic airspace over the North Atlantic.

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and-services/Pages/on-board-operational-initiatives-ads-b.aspx
 
Just telling you what people are going to demand now. It's already happening.

Demand? They don't even get chow anymore. What are they gonna do, start taking buses, trains and boats - or stay home? When did the beleaguered air traveler suddenly achieve this new power to "demand" stuff? :rolleyes:
 
Demand? They don't even get chow anymore. What are they gonna do, start taking buses, trains and boats - or stay home? When did the beleaguered air traveler suddenly achieve this new power to "demand" stuff? :rolleyes:
You see how we now have the ATP requirement to be hired at the airlines...
 
What's wrong with ADS-B. Or is it the government aspect you oppose?

I've typed that up a billion times.

Too much money spent for too little purpose.

How many bucks an airline ticket would ADS-B have cost (to use Kent's analysis method) if it weren't socialized into debt?

Would anyone have chosen to implement it for that cost?

What does it buy the public?
 
Has anyone check with Mister Spock on this. He is pretty good at logic and probability numbers. He probably knows where MH370 is. Give him a call to his Motorola flip cell phone. He is too smart for smart phones.

Live Long and Prosper
 
Iridium. I guess the military isn't using all their bandwidth after all. Well, that or airliner tracking is more lucrative. Heh.
 
Back
Top