• MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.

Flight MH370 Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who said it was impossible?
BTW, truck tracking has the truck communicating with terrestrial commstations and geosynchronous satellites such as those that deliver direct to home satellite TV. Guess where those are most effective? Over land because that's where TVs and trucks are. I doubt that sat TV reception is very good 500 miles west of Perth.
 
Soulfly said:
So all these truck tracking services had to launch their own satellites?
Click to expand...

No, they use the cellular data network (if using active tracking, passive tracking just records the data in a box). Which planes can't use. Planes would have to use comms satellites, which are very expensive to use.

EDIT: Actually some of the truck tracking services do use satellite comms for tracking out in the hills. But to get world-wide coverage, I think you'd need something like the satellite phones. Comms coverage over north america is very different to the south Indian ocean.
 
jaydeehess said:
Who said it was impossible?
BTW, truck tracking has the truck communicating with terrestrial commstations and geosynchronous satellites such as those that deliver direct to home satellite TV. Guess where those are most effective? Over land because that's where TVs and trucks are. I doubt that sat TV reception is very good 500 miles west of Perth.
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem to be how this company operates their software.
http://www.fleetmatics.com/our-gps-tracking-system
 
Soulfly said:
Making excuses for why a plane can't always be tracked is disturbing.
Click to expand...
What you call excuses others are calling reasons based on their knowledge and experience. They can't just be dismissed as excuses.
Sure there may be a simple solution to the problem yet to be found, but the objections to what you're proposing seem based on sound reasons and closer knowledge of what's involved.
You're characterising the idea that a plane be tracked at all times is being objected to, but people are just debating the method used to achieve that as far as I can see.
 
Pete Tar said:
What you call excuses others are calling reasons based on their knowledge and experience. They can't just be dismissed as excuses.
Sure there may be a simple solution to the problem yet to be found, but the objections to what you're proposing seem based on sound reasons and closer knowledge of what's involved.
You're characterising the idea that a plane be tracked at all times is being objected to, but people are just debating the method used to achieve that as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
They are not trying to come up with solutions only say this is why it can't be done. That is disturbing to me.
 
It occurs to me that the system Soulfly wants is available now via ACARS. However airlines either choose to subscribe or choose not to.

I don't know if positional data is included in any service package or if it were to be added it would lessen the ability to transmit more important data that it already does.
 
jaydeehess said:
It occurs to me that the system Soulfly wants is available now via ACARS. However airlines either choose to subscribe or choose not to.
Click to expand...
Which can be turned off right?

That is my point, being able to turn things off so a plane can't be tracked, if it is not in radar range is silly to me. I get there are a lot of technical aspects to overcome and financial ones too but I am just getting the sentiment of 'too bad, so sad' a plane can just disappear and there isn't much to do about it.

To give terrorists or pilots for the matter, the ability to essentially make a plane disappear by turning things off, should not be allowed. Just my opinion and nothing more.
 
Soulfly said:
They are not trying to come up with solutions only say this is why it can't be done. That is disturbing to me.
Click to expand...
Well okay then. Seems unnecessary to be disturbed by it, but I am disturbed by things others aren't and it's your response so that's fair I guess.

I'm sure there will be a lot of talk on the subject following this case, which while extremely rare has captured the world's attention, and many solutions will be proposed, the likelihood being that a change in policy and legislation will result.
 
Soulfly said:
I find this just as disturbing since I never said anything of the such nor did I imply it. Making excuses for why a plane can't always be tracked is disturbing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think people are "making excuses"? It's not like people don't want planes to be tracked. It just seems like there are economic reasons why it's not a high priority. So airlines don't do it.

So they question really should be if it should be mandated by law. And then how would that apply to Malaysia?
 
Round round we go.

We've gone over reasons why its a good idea to be able to turn things off.
The possibility of major malfunction resulting in fire is at least as good, probably more so, than the probability that this utility would ever be required on a flight. You are therefore assuming greater risk than benefit.

So, hypothetically, and using your argument from above, if an aircraft goes down due to a fire caused by a device for which there was no way to cut its power off, ate you going to tell the victims families that it was necessary just in case an aircraft went off radar?
 
Soulfly said:
Why wouldn't they want to?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they want to do anything that sounds like a good idea? Generally it's lobbying. Occasionally because of public opinion, often driven by industry PR.

Of course now, perhaps there might be more likelihood of such legislation passing. In the US though, there's a strong political opposition to government interference in industry - so even things that are good ideas, and most people want, have a hard time getting into law.
 
jaydeehess said:
We've gone over reasons why its a good idea to be able to turn things off.
The possibility of major malfunction resulting in fire is at least as good, probably more so, than the probability that this utility would ever be required on a flight. You are therefore assuming greater risk than benefit.
Click to expand...
The reason I find most disturbing. Not being able to turn it off. There is always a solution.
 
Mick West said:
They don't actually say if they offer a pure satellite option, so I suspect it's just cellular data. This one would be a better example:
http://www.trackyourtruck.com/how-it-works
Click to expand...
Shaw Tracking in N.America offers either a terrestrial signal, cellular tracking system, or a satellite tracking system via their satellite in geosynchronous orbit.
Shaw is a cable and satellite TV provider with, at the moment, three satellites in close orbital grouping. Shaw Tracking is a small add on division. Put you truck on a ship and send it to Hawaii and Shaw will lose it until it hits a cell tower at its destination.
 
Soulfly said:
That is a sad thing to think there is never a solution.

And I bow out of this pointless and as you put it round about argument.
Click to expand...
Well for some reason you have a view of technological infallibility. I've been an electronics tech for 35+ years and know all too well that ain't so.
 
jaydeehess said:
Well for some reason you have a view of technological infallibility. I've been an electronics tech for 35+ years and know all too well that ain't so.
Click to expand...
I think most of the population does given the technological marvels we're surrounded by and take for granted without having the slightest idea how they work. Understanding how and why they can fail and their limitations requires more specialist knowledge than it takes to use them, hence it's understandable to assume a level of belief in infallibility that is not actually justified.
 
Pete Tar said:
I think most of the population does given the technological marvels we're surrounded by and take for granted without having the slightest idea how they work. Understanding how and why they can fail and their limitations requires more specialist knowledge than it takes to use them, hence it's understandable to assume a level of belief in infallibility that is not actually justified.
Click to expand...
Yes, a TV science program in the 1980s ( sorry, I don't recall what it was) pointed out that while the vast majority of the population of Canada uses a telephone and knows very well how to operate them, that only a small minority have the knowledge of how the system operates.

Many people now, know the fundamentals of how a cell phone works, communicates with towers and hands off the call between towers as you move, but they still have no idea how that signal gets from one location to the location of the person you are calling or texting.
Same goes when you get into the devices. Sure it contains integrated circuit chips. What's inside the chips? How to they work?
Even fewer people have that knowledge. My chip design knowledge is very basic but I can take one and, with a bit of research into how it incorporated into a device, design a circuit. I know very little about how its actually put together inside, even the "equivalent circuit" diagram is only a simplified outline.
 
The argument eventually becomes, "why not design out any possible thing that can bring down an airliner?"

The world has seen what happens when airliners fly into volcanic plumes. The engines stop running. It is easily avoidable by developing a radar that detects volcanic ash and installing it on all aircraft.

30 years after Speedbird 009 lost all four engines (coincidentally in almost the same airspace the MH370 flight must have gone through ), and then the following week a Singapore Airlines aircraft lost 3 out of 4, we don't have that radar.

What we do have is a warning system utilising modern communications and the ability to reroute aircraft in flight. If that fails we have a checklist and techniques to use to get out of the plume ASAP whilst limiting the damage to the turbines caused by running the aircraft at cruise power.

So far that has worked and no airliners have had multiple engine failures flying into plumes since about 1989.

Knowing where this aircraft was in flight at all times would not have saved anyone. It would just have made the process of finding the wreckage simpler. So do you design a system that makes it impossible to be not tracked based on one unique event? Do we have someone thinking up all possible scenarios and trying to design them out of possibility?

You put pilots on flight decks to cope with the unexpected. Do you get rid of pilots now to design this possibility out? Because sure as anything, something unexpected is going to happen with a pilotless plane that nobody thought of.

There is always a tiny amount of risk that people accept when boarding an aircraft. Designing that away, IMHO is not possible.

PS, I am flying through the exact route flown by BA 009 in about 6 hours... Do you think it is worth the risk? ;)
 
It seems like they are certain that they know where the plane is now, but I have to admit that it's hard to take their word for it at this point.

However judging by the comments on various news articles and even statements by family members of the victims; it seems that people are clinging to their conspiracy theories.
Understandably, the reason for the lengthy search seems to be caused by Malaysia's apparent inability to launch a professional investigation. I'd say that in this circumstance that most of the blame goes to the mainstream media for the inevitable conspiracy theories that will proliferate due to their over-speculation.
 
TWCobra said:
The argument eventually becomes, "why not design out any possible thing that can bring down an airliner?"
Click to expand...

People seem to place way too much faith in technology as if it had magical properties. People ask why there were no cell phone calls as if they expect cell towers to in the middle of the ocean. Equipment fails. And sometimes, it fails hard. Almost any accident aviation related or not will have a list of 'coulda, shoulda, wouldas' that should have prevented it. Who would have foreseen that aging frayed wires on TWA800 would ignite heated jet fuel in a center wing tank after sitting on the tarmac for several hours in July heat?
 
Soulfly said:
So all these truck tracking services had to launch their own satellites?
Click to expand...
Soulfly is right, how did the entire trucking and bussing industry overhaul their efforts to make sure each vehicle was equipped with GPS and tracking devices. My father drove trucks for a living, and the company he worked for which I won't name on here even had information sent to his company about how fast he was driving, fuel consumption, if he took back roads as opposed to direct route, and when he would pull over to take his (Law required) naps. As I said in a previous post, the airline industry only makes a profit margin of 1%, but I'm sure these company's could get grant money from the government to do this. I too find it somewhat disturbing that pilots seem to be totally against this. Is it for practical reason, cost, or don't want your "boss" looking over your shoulder?
 
Soulfly said:
I would be happy to pay a little more on my flight to ensure my loved ones will know where the hell I am if something goes wrong. Guess you're not?
Click to expand...
I wouldnt want to pay a dime more for a false sense of security . Whats the point of security when the pilots themselves could be the terrorist ? Or the ground crew ? Or through the food suppliers to airports such as Atlanta s Airport ? If you fly you know the risk which is less then traveling to the airport by car . We spend billions a year on TSA for what ? I leave Melborne Fl I have to go through naked body scanner and separate my liquids and take off my shoes . 2 days later I leave Ronald Reagan airport Near DC and just walk through a metal detector as we did in the seventies and Im done ? I only know of 2 kamikaze airline pilots and the only thing they had in common was their religion .
 
Jason said:
I too find it somewhat disturbing that pilots seem to be totally against this. Is it for practical reason, cost, or don't want your "boss" looking over your shoulder?
Click to expand...

None of the above, rest assured. The analogy between a trucking company that can track their drivers' habits (when such drivers have relatively free autonomy) and the highly restricted and regimented nature of commercial airline operations isn't apt.
 
Jason said:
Soulfly is right, how did the entire trucking and bussing industry overhaul their efforts to make sure each vehicle was equipped with GPS and tracking devices. My father drove trucks for a living, and the company he worked for which I won't name on here even had information sent to his company about how fast he was driving, fuel consumption, if he took back roads as opposed to direct route, and when he would pull over to take his (Law required) naps. As I said in a previous post, the airline industry only makes a profit margin of 1%, but I'm sure these company's could get grant money from the government to do this. I too find it somewhat disturbing that pilots seem to be totally against this. Is it for practical reason, cost, or don't want your "boss" looking over your shoulder?
Click to expand...
WeedWhacker said:
None of the above, rest assured. The analogy between a trucking company that can track their drivers' habits (when such drivers have relatively free autonomy) and the highly restricted and regimented nature of commercial airline operations isn't apt.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an entirely different thing. Trucks are tracked mostly for economic reasons, not in case the trucks get lost. There is a strong financial motivation for the truck companies to track trucks - they can save thousands of dollars. There is no such motivation for airlines to track their planes beyond the already high level of tracking they have. If there was, then they would have done it.

It's not like there's a conspiracy to not track planes here. It's just inertia, economics, and politics.
 
WeedWhacker said:
None of the above, rest assured. The analogy between a trucking company that can track their drivers' habits (when such drivers have relatively free autonomy) and the highly restricted and regimented nature of commercial airline operations isn't apt.
Click to expand...
I'm in now way directly comparing the two. But the belief that truck drivers for companies, and not owner operators have full autonomy is a misconception. Its not true. The vast majority of truck drivers in the US work for companies and have to follow strict guidelines if they wish to keep their job, and its not because of the owners, unfortunately its because of the insurance companies and law suits. I think I saw a somewhere that there are about 32000 commercial flights give or take a few hundred world wide.
In the US alone,
according to the US Bureau of Transit Statistics for 2006, there are 250,844,644 registered passenger vehicles in the US.135,399,945 were classified as automobiles, while 99,124,775 were classified as SUVs and pick-up trucks, and 6,649,337 were classified as trucks. There were approximately 6,686,147 motorcycles in the US in 2006.
Content from External Source
Thats just in 2006. Now keep in mind I would venture to guess that a fairly decent number of them have GPS capability. Out of the 6,000,000 million trucks, even if only 10% of them are set up with tracking devices thats still a staggering 600,000. It isn't fair to suggest it was an easy overhaul for the trucking industry.
 
Jason said:
Now keep in mind I would venture to guess that a fairly decent number of them have GPS capability. Out of the 6,000,000 million trucks, even if only 10% of them are set up with tracking devices thats still a staggering 600,000. It isn't fair to suggest it was an easy overhaul for the trucking industry.
Click to expand...

Truck companies can save money by installing tracking devices.
Airlines would waste money, as they already have adequate tracking.

So the comparison is meaningless.
 
AluminumTheory said:
People seem to place way too much faith in technology as if it had magical properties.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the old "They can put a man on the moon but they can't..."
So much of the commentary generally expresses this disbelief that 'in this day and age' they can lose a plane.
There must be a new logical fallacy in there, the fallacy of technological omnipotence.
Really it shows that mankind doesn't have the ability to control every single thing on the earth, which is still a big place and largely indifferent to us.
 
I meant "autonomy" in the sense that when given a schedule for a delivery or to transport goods, a commercial truck driver has a certain level of discretion and options, within the regulatory boundaries and quidelines of the industry. When compared to the airline industry, or even the railroads.
 
Mick West said:
Truck companies can save money by installing tracking devices.
Airlines would waste money, as they already have adequate tracking.
Click to expand...
Well your right in that respect. It wouldn't save the airline industry any money, not a dime to be honest with you. Trucking company didn't do it to save money up front, they did it to reduce cost with insurance and lawsuits... But your right! And my comparison wasn't about the cost associated with it, it was about whether or not it was able to be done
 
WeedWhacker said:
I meant "autonomy" in the sense that when given a schedule for a delivery or to transport goods, a commercial truck driver has a certain level of discretion and options, within the regulatory boundaries and quidelines of the industry. When compared to the airline industry, or even the railroads.
Click to expand...
From what I've been able to discern from your comments and that of other pilots on this site, it seems like pilots also have options or the ability to use discretion while in flight. They can change their course and enter new coordinates if it saves time and money or to go around a storm. There is a highway in the sky, just more regulated that state and county roads. On the ground there are police to ensure drivers are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and in the air there is what? FAA, what happens if a commercial pilot decides to turn off his transponder, nothing. What happens if a pilot chooses to go around a Thunderstorm, or take a more direct flight. Are pilots allowed discretion up there? Honest question
 
I see what you're asking, and it did occur to me in my previous response to mention the authority and discretion granted to flight crews for situations such as weather deviation, etc. And of course emergency situations.

But, what I was getting at was (even prior to the technology of GPS, which affords truck companies this ability), commercial airliners' movements were closely monitored since the advent of radar incorporation into the ATC system.

This relates of course to the industrialized world, and over land. Now, even in a non-radar environment, whether over water or land (remote regions of the world, e.g., the Amazon), flights on an IFR flight plan are required to provide ATC with timely and regulatory position reports. Usually the longest period of time that can elapse between reports is 60 minutes.

The usual (and always the default) means for this is via HF radio. Unlike VHF signals, HF is not limited to line-of-sight limitations. Ftr airlines (or even private jets) that have the proper equipment, position reporting can now (for at least the last decade or more) use the SATCOM links for position reporting requirements. (Much preferred, from the standpoint of a user. HF communications are notoriously a pain).

On side note, back to MH370: I haven't seen much fuss made about the unconscionable delay by Malaysian Airlines in waiting until well after MH370's ETA had passed before (apparently) taking action. This should have been initiated when the the first compulsory reporting point on their over-water portion of the route was missed...after a length of time, ATC would begin to attempt contact (via SEL-CAL), and should have notified the airline when no verbal response was received. Hours before the ETA in Beijing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
Emails From a Pilot Regarding Starlink and Other Objects
Replies
3
Views
2K
Leekster
Leekster
Z.W. Wolf
Claim - The Brother of Nick Davies (AKA Phuket Word) Speaks
Replies
5
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
H
Claim: "50/50 chance" Saudi spy knew of 9/11, aided hijackers
Replies
25
Views
4K
Oystein
Oystein
I
The 1976 Iran F4 UAP/UFO case
2 3
Replies
114
Views
15K
Rick Robson
R
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
27K
Gary C
Gary C

Latest posts

Back
Top