Jump to content
BANGKOK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

webfact

Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

Recommended Posts

I'd be happy if the mods closed this thread. If some new information comes up a new thread can easily be started.

Have you considered just not opening it if there are no new posts?

I take your point, yes - but there were, so I looked. By default I log in to my version of ...

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=98759

and the daily news digest, so I only see what's new -- otherwise I'd be reading the screen all day ;)

I'd see a new thread started about MH370 in the news digest.

I think of the families googling for news and coming across some of what can at best be described as wild rumours, at worst mischevious speculation. Anyone who has first hand experience of losing a loved one in mysterious circumstances will understand the anguish of not knowing and the temptation to hope.

The ocean search seems to have gleaned a lot of colateral information, but nothing definitive of any objects looking like a fuselage. Look at how difficult is was for them to find the Air Asia aircraft when they had a much smaller area of relatively shallow sea. As an aside, the powers-that-be need to pull their socks up regarding the tracking of longhaul aircraft, and at the same time improve the technology that will aid a quick outcome to surface or undersea searches. If technology can put a robot on Mars one is left wondering about the human values placed on the normal people going about their lives.

It seems to take significant damage for humanity to learn anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess if they can read everyone's email (and that's a lot of email...), and are getting ready to keep track of everyone's car, refrigerator and toaster, then doing the same for commercial air shouldn't be too much to ask. The thing is though, such a system would have to be hardened against the possibility of it being intentionally disabled, even by possibly knowledgeable hijackers (which seems pretty much the reason for needing it in the first place). So it's a little more than just a new black box...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess if they can read everyone's email (and that's a lot of email...), and are getting ready to keep track of everyone's car, refrigerator and toaster, then doing the same for commercial air shouldn't be too much to ask. The thing is though, such a system would have to be hardened against the possibility of it being intentionally disabled, even by possibly knowledgeable hijackers (which seems pretty much the reason for needing it in the first place). So it's a little more than just a new black box...

Whilst it's desirable, it is unrealistic to expect one little black box to fix everything. For the avoidance of spoofing, multiple sources of data are needed. For the avoidance of sabotage, at least one of the transponders should be fitted to the outer skin of the aircraft and charged through the skin by induction. If they glued a battery-powered gps to the tail ran it on replaceable batteries it'd work, it wouldn't be very elegant, but it'd be a whole lot better than what we have now ----- nothing!!!

Needless to say the safety beaurocrats will load up the hardware with a pile of unnecessary requirements and make sure they all get a bonus for being clever and another paragraph on their CV.

You only get this cynical after 25 years in public transport of *any* kind.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess if they can read everyone's email (and that's a lot of email...), and are getting ready to keep track of everyone's car, refrigerator and toaster, then doing the same for commercial air shouldn't be too much to ask. The thing is though, such a system would have to be hardened against the possibility of it being intentionally disabled, even by possibly knowledgeable hijackers (which seems pretty much the reason for needing it in the first place). So it's a little more than just a new black box...

I don't think it needs that much reengineering.

You only need something that squawks an ident and a GPS location every 15 seconds - And an emergency call before it can switch off so that civilian and military aircraft and ATC can be alerted if an aircraft goes unintentionally dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess if they can read everyone's email (and that's a lot of email...), and are getting ready to keep track of everyone's car, refrigerator and toaster, then doing the same for commercial air shouldn't be too much to ask. The thing is though, such a system would have to be hardened against the possibility of it being intentionally disabled, even by possibly knowledgeable hijackers (which seems pretty much the reason for needing it in the first place). So it's a little more than just a new black box...

I don't think it needs that much reengineering.

You only need something that squawks an ident and a GPS location every 15 seconds - And an emergency call before it can switch off so that civilian and military aircraft and ATC can be alerted if an aircraft goes unintentionally dark.

150 euros to buy, same again per years service, probably a thousand times that to get the beaurocrats to issue a meaningless bit of paper to "legalise" it.

http://www.findmespot.eu/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=31&zenid=onm4pcjgo72d10p3o0e39vivi0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the CVR and the FDR can not be "switched off" by flight crew in any straight forward manner. However, they can easily erase the last 30 mins recording! Extraordinary!

Therefore, I no longer subscribe to my previously held view that captain should be able to turnoff anything! Some kind of device emitting just ID and GPS with battery backup in a hard enclosure should be no problem.

I recall Inmarsat offered a solution at the time for peanuts.

( comments relate to Airbus A321/20/19 only)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the CVR and the FDR can not be "switched off" by flight crew in any straight forward manner. However, they can easily erase the last 30 mins recording! Extraordinary!

Therefore, I no longer subscribe to my previously held view that captain should be able to turnoff anything! Some kind of device emitting just ID and GPS with battery backup in a hard enclosure should be no problem.

I recall Inmarsat offered a solution at the time for peanuts.

( comments relate to Airbus A321/20/19 only)

They did - but the airlines didn't want it for various vague reasons -- like cost, commercial confidentiality, etc....

No thought that the costs of the current one year search would have fitted every aircraft with a gold-plated sooper-dooper version, transmitting the CVR live maybe -- that'd tune up the crews ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the CVR and the FDR can not be "switched off" by flight crew in any straight forward manner. However, they can easily erase the last 30 mins recording! Extraordinary!

Therefore, I no longer subscribe to my previously held view that captain should be able to turnoff anything! Some kind of device emitting just ID and GPS with battery backup in a hard enclosure should be no problem.

I recall Inmarsat offered a solution at the time for peanuts.

( comments relate to Airbus A321/20/19 only)

They did - but the airlines didn't want it for various vague reasons -- like cost, commercial confidentiality, etc....

No thought that the costs of the current one year search would have fitted every aircraft with a gold-plated sooper-dooper version, transmitting the CVR live maybe -- that'd tune up the crews wink.png

'Can't imagine the pilots' unions would be too crazy about CVRs fitted out to transmit live cockpit voice continuously. Encode or encrypt it however you will: sooner or later the whole world will be listening in. It might "tune up" the crews; then again, it might tend to stifle useful and desirable crew intercommunications. Something that simply continuously records aircraft position (along with a few other parameters perhaps) somewhere OFFboard, that can't be secured or easily jammed and isn't tied to the aircraft electrical systems, sounds more like what the doctor ordered. But I agree with others that by the time government bureaucracies and corporate wiz kids get done with the concept, it (regardless of how simple & inexpensive it could be) will add significantly to the cost of a ticket.

WRT the big picture, I'm really not sure that some new gadget like this is a robust answer to malicious intent in the air, hijacking, and intentional destruction of an aircraft. It's going to be extremely difficult to keep the technical details of a system deployed on every commercial aircraft away from those in today's underworld with the determination & resources to defeat it. But if you're among those who maintain this incident was the result of pure system failure, then I guess it might be though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! w00t.gif

Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane.

We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! w00t.gif

Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane.

We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward.

Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! w00t.gif

Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane.

We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward.

Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources".

You need to read how that in-flight tracking systems work -- not guess. ;) Transponders are not the only spanner in the box .. I posted earlier about spot tracking devices based on Globestar satellites. Also - inmarsat have already got engine reporting working, so it's not a huge leap for that to be extended -- as Inmarsat have already offered to do at a minimum cost.

There's lots of other factors at play here - safety is not always the priority in commercial organisations run by bean-counters. It's up to a body like ICAO to force the changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! w00t.gif

Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane.

We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward.

Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources".

You need to read how that in-flight tracking systems work -- not guess. wink.png Transponders are not the only spanner in the box .. I posted earlier about spot tracking devices based on Globestar satellites. Also - inmarsat have already got engine reporting working, so it's not a huge leap for that to be extended -- as Inmarsat have already offered to do at a minimum cost.

There's lots of other factors at play here - safety is not always the priority in commercial organisations run by bean-counters. It's up to a body like ICAO to force the changes.

YOU need to know I tried but couldn't find the info (talking here about the tracking available to the public (your words, not mine), such as anyone can see at online websites - not tracking services available via Inmarsat & such). And so I admitted I didn't know. OK? thumbsup.gif Yes, I can spell ICAO, too, and know about engine reporting, etc. Can't you just post what you have to say without the condescending manner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed the changes will be resisted for all the wrong reasons, but it'll happen eventually - just as every passanger on a bus can hear what he's saying on his mobile phone while driving !!!! w00t.gif

Malicious intent from within the passenger decks has not been a "success" story, nearly all the incidents of malicious damage have been in the baggage compartment, so that's an area to focus on. Screening certainly slows down the processing of bags, but it doesn't seem to actually be very efficient. Dogs appear to do very well. There's not been conclusive evidence of malicious intent in any of the crew as yet. That would be a job for better screening f employees. Nothing is fool-proof .. more people die crossing the road each year than in aircraft crashes, but the publicity machine glamorises the carnage rather than the mundane.

We already have online tracking of flights available to the public and it is not inconceivable that a gradual upgrade of that system would go a long way to helping. The concept of a battery powered, external transponder is the way forward.

Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources".

You need to read how that in-flight tracking systems work -- not guess. wink.png Transponders are not the only spanner in the box .. I posted earlier about spot tracking devices based on Globestar satellites. Also - inmarsat have already got engine reporting working, so it's not a huge leap for that to be extended -- as Inmarsat have already offered to do at a minimum cost.

There's lots of other factors at play here - safety is not always the priority in commercial organisations run by bean-counters. It's up to a body like ICAO to force the changes.

YOU need to know I tried but couldn't find the info (talking here about the tracking available to the public (your words, not mine), such as anyone can see at online websites - not tracking services available via Inmarsat & such). And so I admitted I didn't know. OK? thumbsup.gif Yes, I can spell ICAO, too, and know about engine reporting, etc. Can't you just post what you have to say without the condescending manner?

Apologies for the percieved tone of my posting -- not meant to offend - just slightly amuse. :)

Without diving back in just now to read the details of things like flighttracker, I don't think it does it all by mere projections, because you can actually see the different tracks used by the same flights on different days. After the Ukranian disaster I followed KLM's flight BKK-AMS because I was due to use it, and there were some significant changes.

Indeed transponders are only as good a the ground station, but now there are satellite available to ping and relay replies to base. The Spot system bears reading up - I am seriously thinking of buying one just for me, but it'll not work inside a crashed fuselage underwater. Quite a few long-distance sailors use it all over the world.

Inmasat made a very public announcement about their offer of tracking about a year ago -- just after MH370 dissappeared, but as far as I know, no airline has taken them up on it, which speaks volumes about airlines priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure, but don't think the "online tracking" is actually based on position reporting or observations, or anything really besides takeoff times and computed dead reckoning. (Just guessing about that; correct me if I'm wrong.) Transponders respond to an external trigger or interrogation of some sort. So the idea of an external transponder consists of more than just a bolt-on black box. There has to be a global ground-based infrastructure to interrogate it and record the response, from every commercial flight, 24-7, including (especially including) over remote areas & open-ocean (where HF and verbal comms are used for position reporting, instead of the onboard transponder and ground-based surveillance now). I realize satellite technology could be used, but satellites have coverage "footprints", so you'd actually need several of them performing the interrogations and relaying the replies continuously to ground stations, at least where the air routes are outside ground-based coverage. 'Doesn't sound undoable by any means, but does sound potentially expensive, esp. if hardened against "malicious actors with resources".

You need to read how that in-flight tracking systems work -- not guess. wink.png Transponders are not the only spanner in the box .. I posted earlier about spot tracking devices based on Globestar satellites. Also - inmarsat have already got engine reporting working, so it's not a huge leap for that to be extended -- as Inmarsat have already offered to do at a minimum cost.

There's lots of other factors at play here - safety is not always the priority in commercial organisations run by bean-counters. It's up to a body like ICAO to force the changes.

YOU need to know I tried but couldn't find the info (talking here about the tracking available to the public (your words, not mine), such as anyone can see at online websites - not tracking services available via Inmarsat & such). And so I admitted I didn't know. OK? thumbsup.gif Yes, I can spell ICAO, too, and know about engine reporting, etc. Can't you just post what you have to say without the condescending manner?

Apologies for the percieved tone of my posting -- not meant to offend - just slightly amuse. smile.png

Without diving back in just now to read the details of things like flighttracker, I don't think it does it all by mere projections, because you can actually see the different tracks used by the same flights on different days. After the Ukranian disaster I followed KLM's flight BKK-AMS because I was due to use it, and there were some significant changes.

Indeed transponders are only as good a the ground station, but now there are satellite available to ping and relay replies to base. The Spot system bears reading up - I am seriously thinking of buying one just for me, but it'll not work inside a crashed fuselage underwater. Quite a few long-distance sailors use it all over the world.

Inmasat made a very public announcement about their offer of tracking about a year ago -- just after MH370 dissappeared, but as far as I know, no airline has taken them up on it, which speaks volumes about airlines priorities.

I think it's important to differentiate between flight tracking in controlled & radar surveyed airspace (for which services & databases do exist providing accurate and near real-time position reporting that can be accessed by the public via the internet), and over open ocean. I did a check on FlightAware just as an example - and noted that every mid-ocean flight report indicates 'Estimated', which I would presume means the position is extrapolated from the aircraft's last known or reported position in accordance with its filed & cleared route of flight. And, of course, MH370 is presumed to have been lost over open ocean in the IO or southern IO where there was/is no radar surveillance capability.

I don't know what percentage of long-haul commercial aircraft are currently equipped with ADS C & B, but aircraft so equipped are essentially datalinked to the applicable oceanic control center, and provided the system doesn't fail for some reason, replaces the old procedure of making position reports via HF voice.

I also looked up the Inmarsat offer announcement (http://www.inmarsat.com/news/inmarsat-provide-free-global-airline-tracking-service/). It states that the tracking service would be free AND that "virtually 100 per cent of the world's long-haul commercial fleet" are already "equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection". So I don't really know what the missing link is here. Why would ICAO, or the airlines for that matter, turn down or oppose implementation of such a service if it's really free and not even requiring anything other than perhaps some programming or configuring of already installed equipment (but see below)? Where are you getting the information that this is a question of "airline priorities" rather than some devil in the details that we're just not seeing? I can tell you that new boxes aren't just bolted into aircraft, nor their functionality and configuration modified if already installed, on a simply ad hoc basis, at least not within the U.S. FAA's jurisdiction. Perhaps there's some functional overlap with planned ADS implementations (ADS becomes a reqt for some aircraft - I presume including all commercial operators - in the U.S. by 2020, in Europe by 2017. And many aren't waiting for the deadline. There were almost 5000 U.S. civil acft already equipped as of late last year, and almost half the U.S. ATCs were using it.) Or perhaps there are certification (i.e., bureaucratic) issues with national aviation agencies, such as the FAA.

As usual, I think a large percentage of TV members are spun up to trash & thrash evil corporations generally, when it appears the capability in question is actually already on some sort of bureaucratic track, however nebulous that track might be when it comes to airlines like Malaysian Air and governments like Malaysia's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU need to know I tried but couldn't find the info (talking here about the tracking available to the public (your words, not mine), such as anyone can see at online websites - not tracking services available via Inmarsat & such). And so I admitted I didn't know. OK? thumbsup.gif Yes, I can spell ICAO, too, and know about engine reporting, etc. Can't you just post what you have to say without the condescending manner?

Apologies for the percieved tone of my posting -- not meant to offend - just slightly amuse. smile.png

Without diving back in just now to read the details of things like flighttracker, I don't think it does it all by mere projections, because you can actually see the different tracks used by the same flights on different days. After the Ukranian disaster I followed KLM's flight BKK-AMS because I was due to use it, and there were some significant changes.

Indeed transponders are only as good a the ground station, but now there are satellite available to ping and relay replies to base. The Spot system bears reading up - I am seriously thinking of buying one just for me, but it'll not work inside a crashed fuselage underwater. Quite a few long-distance sailors use it all over the world.

Inmasat made a very public announcement about their offer of tracking about a year ago -- just after MH370 dissappeared, but as far as I know, no airline has taken them up on it, which speaks volumes about airlines priorities.

I think it's important to differentiate between flight tracking in controlled & radar surveyed airspace (for which services & databases do exist providing accurate and near real-time position reporting that can be accessed by the public via the internet), and over open ocean. I did a check on FlightAware just as an example - and noted that every mid-ocean flight report indicates 'Estimated', which I would presume means the position is extrapolated from the aircraft's last known or reported position in accordance with its filed & cleared route of flight. And, of course, MH370 is presumed to have been lost over open ocean in the IO or southern IO where there was/is no radar surveillance capability.

I don't know what percentage of long-haul commercial aircraft are currently equipped with ADS C & B, but aircraft so equipped are essentially datalinked to the applicable oceanic control center, and provided the system doesn't fail for some reason, replaces the old procedure of making position reports via HF voice.

I also looked up the Inmarsat offer announcement (http://www.inmarsat.com/news/inmarsat-provide-free-global-airline-tracking-service/). It states that the tracking service would be free AND that "virtually 100 per cent of the world's long-haul commercial fleet" are already "equipped with an Inmarsat satellite connection". So I don't really know what the missing link is here. Why would ICAO, or the airlines for that matter, turn down or oppose implementation of such a service if it's really free and not even requiring anything other than perhaps some programming or configuring of already installed equipment (but see below)? Where are you getting the information that this is a question of "airline priorities" rather than some devil in the details that we're just not seeing? I can tell you that new boxes aren't just bolted into aircraft, nor their functionality and configuration modified if already installed, on a simply ad hoc basis, at least not within the U.S. FAA's jurisdiction. Perhaps there's some functional overlap with planned ADS implementations (ADS becomes a reqt for some aircraft - I presume including all commercial operators - in the U.S. by 2020, in Europe by 2017. And many aren't waiting for the deadline. There were almost 5000 U.S. civil acft already equipped as of late last year, and almost half the U.S. ATCs were using it.) Or perhaps there are certification (i.e., bureaucratic) issues with national aviation agencies, such as the FAA.

As usual, I think a large percentage of TV members are spun up to trash & thrash evil corporations generally, when it appears the capability in question is actually already on some sort of bureaucratic track, however nebulous that track might be when it comes to airlines like Malaysian Air and governments like Malaysia's.

From my own experience of compulsory fitment of kit for the sake of safety, I can only comment that the engineers take ten minutes to do the job that the technocrats and beaurocrats take ten days to write up. That was for a simple need to fit radio altimeters on helicopters operating off-shore. They left gaping loopholes in the specification of basics such as the meaning of "offshore" --- meaning that one could parallel the coast all day within 3 miles without the radio altimeter. I know this was fixed later, but it is a good example of the collective ineptitude of the "suits". From 25 years in commercial aviation the resulting cynicism clouds my thinking somewhat. wink.png

The inmarsat offer has not been taken up by anyone afaik, and no airline or international aviation body or national regulatory body has made any noises that indicate the service will be implemented. My posit is simply this -- Why not? Adjusting a box which is already installed on an aircraft is not a major modification unless inmarsat are blowing smoke, but no-one has come out and said that - afaik. I revert to blaming the "suits" on a basis of elimination. No-one stands to lose by using taking up Inmarsat's offer other than the suits who might be protecting the market for up-coming technical improvements -- but those are years away. How many more MH370/AirAsia/Ukrainan disasters will we have in the meantime? I'm not scare-mongering - just stating fact. I want to know who's blocking this so the the families of the victims can sue the asses off them for past and future losses and damages. I have first hand experience of the beaurocrats who defer an immediate solution to some safety requirement to protect their pet projected "solution". There's a lot of lobbying by the various companies supplying the kit and the rewards are not just an invitation to the Christmas Party ;)

Having the solution on "some sort of nebulous track" will not cut it as defence in a court when the class action is heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...