Missing Airplane Flew On for Hours

Post by jamessb » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #130

hueving wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This would be nothing for an airplane - $0.40 per hour? Why don't they do this already? They would likely receive pushback from private jets that don't want all of their flight path transmitted back to RR.

I don't know what RR is, but you don't have to transmit to any central authority. Just to the plane owner. Make a law that the owner has to preserve the data for one week, but doesn't have to provide it to anyone. And doesn't the US military track every overland flight anyway?

Post by mburst » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 3:04 PM UTC

TomGullen wrote: post #176

miratrix wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transponders have to be turned off while you're at the airport and while the plane's being serviced on ground. I think 777 has 2 transponders, so you also need the ability switch from one to the other. Lastly, I believe all electronics on the plane must be on a breaker circuit in case of electrical shorts so that pilots can isolate and turn off faulty circuits. But you're right, ACARS (the system through which the en…

I get that, but what about just simple rules? if(Plane.Altitude > 0 && Plane.FlightTime > 10 Minutes){ TransponderOn }

Post by kjs3 » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 3:16 PM UTC

rz2k wrote: post #65

fosk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting article. One of the comments also gives another plausible solution. Pasting it here for convenience: "There are a number of troubles with that theory Charles, one of which is that the plane should have followed its intended course and stayed on radar by passive reflection, but it is certainly also one of my favourite theories right now. The lack of debris near where it disappeared from the rada…

>It would be perfectly possible for co-conspirator plane to fly transponder-less up to the target plane, take over the transponder code, and fly decoy on the official route, while the MH370 goes elsewhere. Since we know nothing, a lot remains open, but that is some of the most bizarre conjecture I can imagine. A 777 flies at an altitude and velocity because it is optimal. Arrive at the right altitude and location, sp…

Post by mikeash » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 3:22 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #196

mikeash wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no real problem locating the four airliners hijacked on 9/11. In fact, one of them (United 175) didn't even turn its transponder off. The other three were adequately tracked with primary radar. The problems with the airliners that day were deciding what to do about them (e.g. intercept them) and then actually doing it (e.g. no procedures were in place to quickly scramble fighters in a case like this). Prima…

This is not true; the difficulty in using raw radar returns to manage and defend the domestic airspace was the primary reason the FAA grounded all civilian aircraft on 9/11--to clean up the scopes. Andrews scrambled two (unarmed) F-16s to intercept flight 93; they just followed the Potomac north because no one knew where that plane was. Even after the PA crash was confirmed, those fighters spent hours contacting rada…

Post by noselasd » Thu, Mar 13, 2014, 3:48 PM UTC

jfoster wrote: post #159

rschmitty wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey man what are you doing! We can finally use our devices during take off and now you hint at keeping them off permanently! Eek! :P I'm sure the first battery meltdown/fire on a plane is going to cause a riot in the news but the odds...

That did cross my mind when I posted it. I should point out that I don't know what is true. It just seems to be a contradiction that every passenger can take on board and use whatever they want in-flight, yet transponders specially engineered to be safe on a plane must be able to be disabled. I suspect the answer is that the transponder doesn't need to be under the control of anyone on the plane.