Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"The mystery of flight MH370: How on earth, with all our technology, do we lose a giant plane?"
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/178156-the-mystery-of-flight-mh370-how-can-we-track-a-smartphone-anywhere-on-earth-but-a-giant-plane-can-go-missingSo, think about this for a moment. We live in a day and age where GPS (and other radio triangulation methods) can track your smartphone to within a few meters, almost anywhere on Earth. With dedicated, land-based tracking networks, vehicles and devices can be tracked to within a few centimeters. Even in the absence of GPS or radio tracking, inertial guidance (dead reckoning) has been accurate enough since the 60s to accurately land a nuclear ICBM on the other side of the planet, or put the Apollo mission into space.
And then theres connectivity. On land, there are networks (both commercial and governmental) that provide data connectivity almost everywhere. Over water is definitely harder, but satellites do provide pretty good coverage and yes, that particular region of Asia is very well covered by communications satellites. Finally, even if an aircraft is out of satellite/radio coverage, there is absolutely nothing preventing the airplane from transmitting a really juicy low-frequency radio signal that could be picked up thousands of miles away. This is how they communicate with air traffic control, after all.
Why, then, does a plane like the MH370 keep all of its secrets locked up in a black box? Why dont planes constantly transmit all of their black box data, so that we know their exact location, bearing, altitude, and other important factors, at all times? The short answer is, theres no good reason. The long answer is, as youd expect, a bit more complex.
snip
Perhaps, much like how your smartphone waits for a WiFi connection before downloading or uploading large amounts of data, the plane could scale up how much data it sends: It could transmit basic flight data at all times via VHF, and then a full stream of data from the FDR when theres a communications satellite overhead. Ultimately, even though FDRs might record more than 100 variables and diagnostics, were still only talking about a maximum bandwidth requirement of a few megabits; realistically, a few hundred kilobits per second would probably be more than enough.
And then theres connectivity. On land, there are networks (both commercial and governmental) that provide data connectivity almost everywhere. Over water is definitely harder, but satellites do provide pretty good coverage and yes, that particular region of Asia is very well covered by communications satellites. Finally, even if an aircraft is out of satellite/radio coverage, there is absolutely nothing preventing the airplane from transmitting a really juicy low-frequency radio signal that could be picked up thousands of miles away. This is how they communicate with air traffic control, after all.
Why, then, does a plane like the MH370 keep all of its secrets locked up in a black box? Why dont planes constantly transmit all of their black box data, so that we know their exact location, bearing, altitude, and other important factors, at all times? The short answer is, theres no good reason. The long answer is, as youd expect, a bit more complex.
snip
Perhaps, much like how your smartphone waits for a WiFi connection before downloading or uploading large amounts of data, the plane could scale up how much data it sends: It could transmit basic flight data at all times via VHF, and then a full stream of data from the FDR when theres a communications satellite overhead. Ultimately, even though FDRs might record more than 100 variables and diagnostics, were still only talking about a maximum bandwidth requirement of a few megabits; realistically, a few hundred kilobits per second would probably be more than enough.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1289 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"The mystery of flight MH370: How on earth, with all our technology, do we lose a giant plane?" (Original Post)
Gidney N Cloyd
Mar 2014
OP
The article posits that there simple and inexpensive means to avoid this in the future.
Gidney N Cloyd
Mar 2014
#3
longship
(40,416 posts)1. Over the ocean? Easy.
It would take quite a bit of tech to live transmit black box data. That might be very costly. For the rare plane that disappears over the ocean? If one presumes that it is likely crashed anyway, that doesn't seem to be a good use of resources. Others may disagree, and they are expending plenty of resources searching for MH370.
These are questions they ought to maybe consider and you're not the only one who's brought the topic up.
But it's easy to lose a plane over ocean, away from shore and all that means. It's not easy finding a plane crash there, as this case demonstrates.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)2. the transponders were turned off...
and it takes time for people
to realize a plane is missing,
and the new pilot changes course
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,841 posts)3. The article posits that there simple and inexpensive means to avoid this in the future.