[QUOTE=godfatherk;44328100][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft[/url]
Why is this case getting so much attention?[/QUOTE]
The 777 is known to be reliable in the aircraft industry and there have only been 3 confirmed cases where it is considered a hull loss. Not knowing what happened to this plane will begin to raise into question the safety of the plane in the public eyes and that in turn can result in fewer ticket sales.
Airplanes also do not simply disappear. We usually know where they crash (because it almost always happens over land) and can begin a investigation at once. Because all we have is just ATC recordings and some radar data and pings from the plane, that is not enough to figure out where it ended up.
It will eventually fade if nothing is found but that will be another 3-4 weeks.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;44328100][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft[/url]
Why is this case getting so much attention?[/QUOTE]
How many widebody jetliners have disappeared and not been found, at least parts of, 2 weeks later?
[QUOTE=Matt2468rv;44324389]The issues you describe really don't exist. A Gps black box doesn't need to have a large battery seeing as it would only need to transmit its position data to satellites once after a crash. It could also be constantly charged via the plane's main battery and only have its own battery kick in if it were somehow disconnected (likely due to a crash). I see no reason why it would need to be portable. It could be implemented just like a black box.[/QUOTE]
Regarding the need for portability - my reply was in response to another post. It's not feasible nor sensible I agree, but again - my post wasn't really arguing that it was. Having the unit attached to an aircraft systems and charging it on a daily basis is a great solution if it were not portable - and you are correct, this is how modern day FDRs work.
But I disagree with you regarding the battery size - I think my points do stand. If the aircraft transmits once after a crash, what is to say that transmission has definitely reached a satellite in orbit? Weather conditions, poor view of the sky, no available satellites and a handful of other scenarios would mean that GPS unit might not be able to transmit its position directly after the event. The idea of having the "GPS black box" only broadcast its location once is like having the underwater sonar 'ping' of modern FDRs only emit one ping when submerged underwater - unless all the possible variables are in its favor, nobody is going to detect it. For it to be a failsafe, flight critical system it would - and should - be able to operate for a long period until such a time where that facility is no longer needed (or as long as possible) - in other words, it should operate until the wreckage has been found. Note not even modern FDRs can operate like this - their underwater sonar capability runs for ~30 days maximum - and that is a very lightweight broadcasting system when compared to a GPS transceiver. It would need to be able to withstand an impact - like modern FDRs - and that would further contribute to its weight. The size of the battery would also contribute to its weight and if to overcome the issues regarding GPS availability a more powerful GPS transceiver would be used on the device, that would further increase the battery drain - and make it heavier still.
[editline]23rd March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=jordguitar;44328220]The 777 is known to be reliable in the aircraft industry and there have only been 3 confirmed cases where it is considered a hull loss. Not knowing what happened to this plane will begin to raise into question the safety of the plane in the public eyes and that in turn can result in fewer ticket sales.
Airplanes also do not simply disappear. We usually know where they crash (because it almost always happens over land) and can begin a investigation at once. Because all we have is just ATC recordings and some radar data and pings from the plane, that is not enough to figure out where it ended up.
It will eventually fade if nothing is found but that will be another 3-4 weeks.[/QUOTE]
There were musings of several airlines pulling 777s from service when the event surfaced, but those seem to have died down in the past few weeks.
[QUOTE=OvB;44225284]I've heard people say the engines relay diagnostics every 30 minutes to the ground and that they we're relaying for at least 4 hours past it disappearing. But I've also heard that Malaysia said that's not true. Fox News sounds like they're trying to imply it flew to Pakistan which is impossible unless it magically refueled. I don't think anyone really knows where it is still. This whole situation reminds me of Amelia Earhart.[/QUOTE]
Thought I'd flesh this out a little - The engines on board were Rolls-Royce Trent 800s. They have onboard diagnostic measuring, data processing and reporting via satellite at regular intervals as a capability which is used to measure the health of the engine by looking for things like changes in engine vibration at various locations to detect potential developing failures in the various rotating parts. All very interesting but contains absolutely no location data and is a service you need to pay RR a sum of money to subscribe to. The RR corporate line is (and always has been) that the company has no data for these engines.
These are the certified facts that we know, pretty much everything else (including the validity of the statement from RR) is just speculation.
[QUOTE=metallics;44331278]Thought I'd flesh this out a little - The engines on board were Rolls-Royce Trent 800s. They have onboard diagnostic measuring, data processing and reporting via satellite at regular intervals as a capability which is used to measure the health of the engine by looking for things like changes in engine vibration at various locations to detect potential developing failures in the various rotating parts. All very interesting but contains absolutely no location data and is a service you need to pay RR a sum of money to subscribe to. The RR corporate line is (and always has been) that the company has no data for these engines.
These are the certified facts that we know, pretty much everything else (including the validity of the statement from RR) is just speculation.[/QUOTE]
Nice one - really valuable info
This just came up:
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26748146[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
