Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Network United States Technology

New Satellite Network Will Make It Impossible For a Commercial Airplane To Vanish (cbsnews.com) 167

Posted by BeauHD from the lost-and-found dept.
pgmrdlm quotes a report from CBS News: For the first time, a new network of satellites will soon be able to track all commercial airplanes in real time, anywhere on the planet. Currently, planes are largely tracked by radar on the ground, which doesn't work over much of the world's oceans. The final 10 satellites were launched Friday to wrap up the $3 billion effort to replace 66 aging communication satellites, reports CBS News' Kris Van Cleave, who got an early look at the new technology.

On any given day, 43,000 planes are in the sky in America alone. When these planes take off, they are tracked by radar and are equipped with a GPS transponder. All commercial flights operating in the U.S. and Europe have to have them by 2020. It's that transponder that talks to these new satellites, making it possible to know exactly where more than 10,000 flights currently flying are.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Satellite Network Will Make It Impossible For a Commercial Airplane To Vanish More

New Satellite Network Will Make It Impossible For a Commercial Airplane To Vanish

Comments Filter:

  • Also need to make it impossible to turn off GPS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CapS ( 83352 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @05:54PM (#57974580)

    I think they also need to make it impossible to turn off GPS. IIRC, that's what the pilot did on flight MH370.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You can't, FAA regulations.

      • Re:Also need to make it impossible to turn off GPS (Score:4, Informative)

        by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @06:05PM (#57974630) Journal

        Not being allowed to and not being able to are two separate things. It's already illegal to crash an airplane into the ground to kill yourself and everyone on board. So I don't think these suicidal pilots are too worried that they are also breaking FAA regulations by flipping off a switch to disable the transponder.

        It's pretty clear that it should not be possible to disable these transponders / beacons during flight by anyone on board the plane. Or if it is possible then it requires some kind of confirmation and approval from the ground.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          FAA determines the design also, everything has to be able to be rendered safe via toggle/fuse in addition to automatic systems. So no, you're not able to secure it entirely as it is, in addition to being mandated to have it on.

          If the attackers are knowledgeable enough to fly airliners they probably know how / where to disable that. The average nut who busts into a cockpit to kill everybody wouldn't care about a transponder probably.

        • Re:Also need to make it impossible to turn off GPS (Score:5, Funny)

          by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @06:25PM (#57974712) Homepage Journal

          I don't think these suicidal pilots are too worried that they are also breaking FAA regulations by flipping off a switch to disable the transponder.

          That's because nobody ever prosecutes them!! Hand down a few stiff sentences and fines, and then we'll see how suicidal they really are.

          • That's because nobody ever prosecutes them!! Hand down a few stiff sentences and fines, and then we'll see how suicidal they really are.

            I prefer a simpler free market approach. Publish every pilot name and let customers vote with their dollars. How many do you think will take a flight from a pilot who's dead?

            • Well, a dead pilot isn't going to be able to get the plane to take off let alone crash and kill me. So I might not get very far, but I feel fairly confident I would be safer on such a "flight", than on any flight with a living pilot at the controls.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 605dave ( 722736 )

            Agreed, it's time to get tough on suicide. Might I suggest a no tolerance policy? Or at least a 3 strikes and you are out?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dcw3 ( 649211 )

              Agreed, it's time to get tough on suicide. Might I suggest a no tolerance policy? Or at least a 3 strikes and you are out?

              It would take a lot of balls to get three strikes, or two for that matter.

        • It's pretty clear that it should not be possible to disable these transponders / beacons during flight by anyone on board the plane.

          Under routine conditions, the modern airliner can pretty much fly itself. The pilot is there to deal with things that go wrong,. Since you can't possibly predict and program for everything that can go wrong, it's important that the pilot have the final say.

          Better that a human be the one who killed us than a machine.

          • That restricting the pilot will lead to disaster, or that not restricting the pilot will let them cause a disaster?

            I would say that being able to track there position is most unlikely to either cause a disaster or prevent one. But it would make it much cheaper to find the bits left over from a disaster.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by bobby ( 109046 )

            Under routine conditions, the modern airliner can pretty much fly itself. The pilot is there to deal with things that go wrong,. Since you can't possibly predict and program for everything that can go wrong, it's important that the pilot have the final say.

            Better that a human be the one who killed us than a machine.

            I quite agree. After reading about several recent fatal modern airliner crashes, it seems the problem was caused by the machine overpowering the humans who were unaware of the machine's efforts to compensate / counteract. Or in a few cases, the humans assumed the machine (autopilot) was still in control, when it had been disabled, but indications were subtle. It's too easy to blame the humans for not knowing what was going on. The machine's job is to serve the human and in every case I've read I fault t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          Air Traffic Control (ATC) tells the pilot what four digit code to put into their transponder in order to identify them when compared to other aircraft. The pilot can push a button known as "Squawking your ident" in order for them to show up better on ATC's screens. There are some special codes for emergencies. But your comment about disabling a transponder is pointless because it's a simple matter of flying low enough for most radars to not see you. I can tell you this from personal experience because I

        • If you install radar in the satellites then you can directly see all aircraft and drones, no transponder required. Add in doppler radar to see weather systems and you can build a global air traffic routing system for optimal routing of aircraft. Fees from comercial aircraft (for lower fuel costs by mapping wind speeds, and direct flight paths instead of hub and spoke routing) would pay for the entire system.
      • We're talking about an overt action, not following FAA regulations. Nothing to stop the pilot from reaching back and opening the circuit breaker that powers the device.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by crow ( 16139 )

      My understanding is that the airline didn't subscribe to the service, so the airplane wasn't talking to the satellite network, even though it did have the technology included.

    • Re:Also need to make it impossible to turn off GPS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @06:15PM (#57974676)

      I think they also need to make it impossible to turn off GPS. IIRC, that's what the pilot did on flight MH370.

      If I'm on a plane and the transponder has an electrical fault and begins to start sparking and smoking I damn well want the cockpit crew to be able to pull the breaker and kill power to it.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by epine ( 68316 )

        If I'm on a plane and the transponder has an electrical fault and begins to start sparking and smoking I damn well want the cockpit crew to be able to pull the breaker and kill power to it.

        If aeronautics engineers ditch one of the redundant fuel pumps, they could make find room for a second transponder.

        Then, when one transponder sparks, and the crew pulls the breaker, you have a standard malfunction (location of plane is still known).

        However, when the second transponder is depowered, the "under ATC directio

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          If aeronautics engineers ditch one of the redundant fuel pumps,

          Found another clueless poster. Why do you think that pump is there?

          • It's all a question of need. Do we really need redundant fuel pumps? Do we really need redundant transponders? Personally I think the most important thing to improve a plane's reliability is a redundant coffee machine. Can you imagine having a grumpy pilot? It would be nice if they didn't fly into the ground in a fit of tired rage... but at least we'd be able to watch them do it with transponders, we can't do that with fuel pumps.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        You and any equipment safety engineer and insurer. This possibility will not go away any time soon.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Much of the electronics on the aircraft are essential to keeping it in the air. Everything is fly-by-wire. So they don't really design it to be powered off by pulling a breaker, as that would leave you with no control over the aircraft. Instead they design it to fail safe and have redundancy.

        The transponder would likely be the same.

        • Instead they design it to fail safe and have redundancy.

          Yes - You have two engines. If one fails you turn it off and run on the other one.

          You could certainly install a second redundant transponder, but you'd still need a mechanism to kill power to it.

    • Why?

      Dead reckoning should provide data accurate enough to find the wreckage of a downed plane. Any GPS system on a plane should have (if it doesn't already) a backup that uses dead reckoning.

    • GPS is a receiver. You're thinking of something else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Pretty hard to make turning off things impossible when you may need to do exactly that in case of an electrical fire in one of them. The pilot can still break the system and there is no sane way around that.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • I think they also need to make it impossible to turn off GPS. IIRC, that's what the pilot did on flight MH370.

      I rather liked their new slogan. 'Didn't have time for a shower? You'll just wash up on the beach somewhere'

  • It's that transponder that talks to these new satellites, making it possible to know exactly where more than 10,000 flights currently flying are.

    So, perhaps in the event of transponder malfunction?

    The fallacy of absolutes is why we can now only rate products as idiot-resistant, since idiot-proof only lasts until we encounter a more consummate idiot.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Like a traffic collision avoidance system that should always work and can never be turned off?
      Until its found to be turned off :)

  • There are many ways to cloak them (Score:3)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @06:05PM (#57974634) Homepage Journal

    For one thing, the GPS satellites include error correction code, and can even be programmed to exclude certain events. They are military satellites, and we don't tell you about certain things, because it's none of your business.

    But, other than flights or areas we don't want you to know about, and if they actually have functional GPS transponders, yes, you can now follow them.

    If we want you to.

    Fun experiment: watch how your GPS gets more inaccurate and stops working in certain areas when there are certain international incidents. You'll even see your location suddenly jump way far away.

  • One thing I've never understood is why a modern airliner - essentially a highly complex flying computer costing tens of millions of Dollars to acquire and keep operating safely - does not have CCTV-like live video feeds from the cockpit and cabin going up to a satellite uplink at all times? Its the same dumb news all the time "airliner vanishes from radar", "search for missing flight XXXXXXX continues". Are airliners, in 2019, not capable of constantly streaming live video and instrument data to a satellite
    • I have no idea why that is still allowed. There should be NO reason for the plane to allow the pilot to take actions that crash the plane.
      • While I agree with you, I'm wondering whether there is a fear than an "anti-crash" system might interfere - accidentally - with the drastic flight-commands an airline pilot may give the plane (to save some passengers) just before an unwanted collision with hard ground occurs. Remember this Airbus 320 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] ) which supposedly crashed into trees, killing everyone on board, because the autopilot of the time "fought the pilot" over who should control the plane at low altitude? I ag

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rufey ( 683902 )

          Out of 136 people on board, only 3 died, all of smoke inhalation due to not being able to escape the aircraft.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          The aircraft was intentionally flying at a very low altitude as it was part of an airshow, demonstrating fly-by-wire. It was the fist public demonstration of fbw, which obviously didn't go well.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by djbckr ( 673156 )
        As another poster mentioned - it's pretty hard to prevent this sort of thing while allowing the pilot to do what (s)he needs to do in an emergency situation. These aircraft are already quite automated, but to completely wrest control of the airplane from the pilot, especially at low altitude... That's not good. And it would be difficult for the computer to definitively say: Ok, the pilot is in control, or the pilot is suicidal. And even if the pilot is suicidal, what does the aircraft do then exactly?

        The

    • Re:Why Do Airplanes Need Black Boxes At All? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Megane ( 129182 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @06:56PM (#57974818)

      CCTV-like live video feeds from the cockpit and cabin going up to a satellite uplink at all times

      You do realize that trans-oceanic planes regularly go places where there is no line-of-sight communications to civilization on the ground? Bandwidth over satellite isn't cheap, especially before this new generation of Iridium. The original Iridium didn't even have a digital mode; access devices had to have their own modem circuitry.

      They're certainly not going to spend that much just because one (1) pilot (probably) went psycho and deliberately evaded tracking. There have been other cases of pilots going psycho and crashing the plane, but only one was able to hide the plane too. And if you saw some shit going down, what would you do about it anyhow?

      • CCTV-like live video feeds from the cockpit and cabin going up to a satellite uplink at all times

        You do realize that trans-oceanic planes regularly go places where there is no line-of-sight communications to civilization on the ground?

        You do realize that satellites are not on the ground?

        Bandwidth over satellite isn't cheap, especially before this new generation of Iridium.

        Some systems are cheaper than others.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        They're certainly not going to spend that much just because one (1) pilot (probably) went psycho and deliberately evaded tracking. There have been other cases of pilots going psycho and crashing the plane, but only one was able to hide the plane too. And if you saw some shit going down, what would you do about it anyhow?

        Indeed. Insurers (and that is what it comes down to) can live very well with the occasional unexplained loss. It is just the general public that has trouble dealing with reality.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Indeed. They would probably need to create fictional losses if there were no real ones. The higher the risk-perception and the lower the actual risk, the better for their business.

    • Replacing black boxes is unlikely for several reasons (according to Jack Cox, of "Ask the Captain":
      • "Vanishing" commercial airliners are quite rare. If they don't land successfully, they usually just crash and the debris (and black box) is found.
      • Replacing all the info in a modern black box entails a significant bandwidth requirement (currently expensive)
      • Black boxes are known to be pretty reliable. There would have to be a lot of expensive testing to convince the industry that a alternative was at least as
    • Someone would have to pay for it, and satellite bandwidth for tens of thousands of aircraft over the entire planetary surface is expensive. You could provide (not very fast) internet for about 50 people from the bandwidth of your proposed system.

  • I'm pretty sure YouTube is going to dub this The Malaysia Airlines Challenge before taking the video down. [slashdot.org] ;)

  • But these new Iridium satellites are made so they don't have that very focused reflection that makes a brief light of about 5-10 seconds that is as an airplane light.
    https://www.iridium.com/flarew... [iridium.com]

  • They Can Still Vanish (Score:5, Informative)

    by zamboni1138 ( 308944 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @06:26PM (#57974716)
    Of course they can still vanish. Turn off the ADS-B transmitter on the aircraft and poof they're gone from the ADS-B receiver on the (Iridium) satellite.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Of course they can still vanish. Turn off the ADS-B transmitter on the aircraft and poof they're gone from the ADS-B receiver on the (Iridium) satellite.

      You're not wrong, but if everyone is expecting a plane to check in every "x" seconds or minutes, and it doesn't, that will now bring up a red flag and having people start asking "WTF?".

      Satellites phone can be issued to long-distance flight crews, and you get a call if something strange is happening. A phone can perhaps be issued to the head flight attendant as well, so there's someone independent of the flight crew to contact.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megane ( 129182 )

        A phone can perhaps be issued to the head flight attendant as well, so there's someone independent of the flight crew to contact.

        Maybe not so much if the pilot locks the door when the right seat goes to the head, then puts on his O2 mask and turns off the cabin pressure, which is one of the MH370 scenarios. You go to sleep quite quickly and won't even realize it's happening unless you've had high-altitude training.

        • Have you ever heard a pre-takeoff safety briefing? If the pilot decides to depressurize the cabin, you will have this truly inconspicuous clue of oxygen masks dropping from the panels above the passengers' heads throughout the entire cabin, so they will definitely notice something is off. Nothing they can do, though, as the chemical generators are capable of sustaining them for around 15 minutes and their supply will run out long before the pilot's.

  • Not a GPS transponder (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @07:44PM (#57975000) Homepage Journal

    GPS is a receiver (unless you're the satellite). It's probably ADS-B they're talking about. This takes the GPS position as input, and transmits position information which can appear on air traffic control screens superimposed with radar.

    It's possible to lie about your GPS position. This is why air traffic controllers have not stopped using radar (they know something is there whether it's squawking the right information from its ADS-B transponder or not).

    It is also possible to screw up your local air traffic controller with spoofed ADS-B transmissions. Cryptographic signature is not part of the system yet.

    • GPS is a receiver (unless you're the satellite).

      Indeed. And a transponder is something that replies to a request. A GPS transponder is something that replies to a request with a GPS position. Just because the request doesn't come through via GPS doesn't mean the term "GPS transponder" isn't used legitimately in literature, descriptions, wikipedia, or even ... https://www.raveon.com/m7-gx-g... [raveon.com] the product names of the devices.

  • The sad end of Iridium Flares (Score:4, Informative)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2019 @07:59PM (#57975036)
    The older Iridium satellites had 3 large, flat antennae on the bottom. These would reflect sunlight down, and if viewed at the right time and place after dark or before dawn, would go from invisible to the brightest thing in the sky for a few seconds. Since the satellites were in predictable orbits and orientation, it was possible to forecast exactly when these flares would occur. I enjoyed viewing them, and surprising people by pointing them out ahead of time. I'll miss them, since the new satellites are a completely different design.

  • "Impossible" is a pretty big word.

    How about we start with "nearly impossible" and see how that goes?

  • A much better idea would be to install 3 or 4 additional Black Boxes with radio beacons which would be programmed to eject themselves if the plane went into a fast non-recoverable dive. They could be filled with expanding styrofoam or similar, guaranteed to float if they land in water, and tough enough to withstand impact on land. By recovering the ones that ejected first, and tracing the line, the final position of the aircraft would be known,.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The reason this has not be done is simple: There is no rational reason to do it. The only ones having trouble with the occasional unexplained loss is the public. It is not a relevant problem to anybody rational. Far too rare.

      • No, aeroplane manufacturers and the FAA have a problem with unexplained plane losses too. A fault or design flaw in an aircraft that, for example, manifests itself at high altitude with sudden decompression, can cause an aircraft to literally explode. Without pieces of the aircraft to analyse, this flaw could go undiagnosed for years, causing other accidents that could have been rectified much sooner.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Why is this not a thing already?

  • New Satellite Network Will Make It Impossible For a Commercial Airplane To Vanish

    "The plane is gone? Inconceivable!"

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close