FAA Tracking All Boeing 737 Max Flights Around World With Satellites (bloomberg.com) 77
All Boeing 737 Max flights around the world are being tracked by U.S. regulators who are keeping watch on the plane after its 20-month grounding. From a report: The Federal Aviation Administration is using a network of satellites capable of tracking planes in even the most remote regions as if they were under surveillance by local radars, according to the agency. The data is being provided by Virginia-based Aireon, the FAA said in an emailed statement on Friday. Aireon, which reached an agreement in November to provide the FAA with expanded flight data, is tracking Max flights for unusual events, such as rapid descents, said Vincent Capezzuto, the company's chief technology officer. The monitoring began Jan. 29, Capezzuto said during a Feb. 12 webinar hosted by Aviation Week. "Recently, we engaged with them on a 737 Max monitor," he said. "You can literally monitor it on a situational awareness display." If any unusual events occur on the plane, "safety engineers and inspectors will use the early notification to further analyze the incident," the FAA said.
Doesn't fill me with confidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't fill me with confidence (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and clean house at the top
It's the details.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes that american worship of the ceo, where everybody thinks they are the next jesus and everybody has to prostrate and worhsip.
Re: (Score:2)
Or better plan. Lets find out what the problem was and fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing that introducing a few lions into the management breakroom can't fix.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be like a restaraunt reintroducing a previously poisoned food ingredient, and then standing beside the diner with a clipboard and pen when they start eating it.
Stinks of "not quite ready".
So you should reintroduce an ingredient without monitoring and just rely on the mortality figures to determine if your new supply is also tainted?
I challenge your point of view. The fact that they are actively looking at this plane more than ever before fills me with confidence that they are not taking any chances.
Horse, barn door (Score:2)
Why don't they track ALL flights (well at least in the US)
All of the Malaysian airlines would probably also worth tracking...
I guess the same would be true of Airlines operating in geographically remote areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they track ALL flights (well at least in the US)
Cost, most likely. Sure we could do all of that, but outside of specific circumstances like these is probably doesn't provide any additional safety benefits.
At some point you have to conclude that it's good enough because nothing will ever be perfect and you can make something prohibitively expensive in the pursuit of perfection.
Re: Horse, barn door (Score:1)
Am I realy in a parallel universe?
Let me check...
https://www.flightradar24.com/ [flightradar24.com]
Nope. You are.
Flights are tracked, and have been for quite some time, AFAIK.
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal Aviation Administration is using a network of satellites capable of tracking planes in even the most remote regions as if they were under surveillance by local radars, according to the agency.
Re: (Score:2)
Flights are tracked, and have been for quite some time, AFAIK.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 [wikipedia.org] certainly wasn't.
Did you mean to say "Flights are tracked when they are in range of ground radars?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not ground radar, ground ADS-B transceiver stations - aircraft are mainly tracked by active signals they produce, not via radar (radar plays some role around airports and in military situations, but thats about it).
The problem is, the same issue applies to ADS-B as it does radar - receiver stations are very few and far between beyond any land masses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They do. Lots of people do. You can too: https://flightaware.com/ [flightaware.com]
I assume the FAA means they've got a bunch of people actually closely watching the MAXs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tracking planes hardly helps, its not as if tracking is going to stop a suicide pilot, or stop software going crazy on a max.
Do not disrespect professionals this way. The 737MAX design and a practically corrupt approval process was what was "crazy" here. No, you cannot do anything about a suicidal pilot other than to try and prevent that from ever happening while on the ground. Same goes for a well-armed suicidal cop walking around. Mental health matters.
And you need to stop assuming that every plane that goes down, instantly kills all inhabitants. The water survival features built into every aircraft, are not there for decor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they basically are, 99% of flights that crash into water are completely destroyed.
Re: (Score:1)
Tracking planes hardly helps,
Sure. Helps what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Horse, barn door (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean flights more than 1000km from you? 2000km? 3000km? ... 13000km? Where do you draw the line?
The problem is the collision between the cost of safe aircraft operation and the costs people are willing to pay. People aren't willing to pay enough money to operate aircraft to first world standards of safety, so either the first world is going to have to accept higher levels of risk, or the industry is going to go bust.
The last year is going to be des
That is new? (Score:2)
I thought precise tracking was a international flight regulation and had been for a long time now!
I even remember a web site thst let you track all flights on the planet in real time! No, I didn't dream that.
So... did I fall into a parallel universum of NIH?
Re: That is new? (Score:2)
Just checked. Apparently there are many. Here's one:
https://www.flightradar24.com/ [flightradar24.com]
It might not be 100% realtime, due to the limitations of such a site, but it looks like, clearly, flights are tracked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flight Radar 24 etc use ADS-B receivers to track aircraft, and its woefully inaccurate once an aircraft goes beyond receiver range - which is a lot of the time. FR24 et al only have projected routes across the Atlantic for example, not real time actual tracking data.
Because ADS-B receivers are none-existent once you are over ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Because ADS-B receivers are none-existent once you are over ocean.
Once this was true. But not so much any more. Iridium satellites have been equipped with ADS-B receivers [wikipedia.org]. The deployment is pretty much complete. So now we have tracking all over the globe, oceans included.
Re: (Score:2)
"So... did I fall into a parallel universum of NIH?"
What has the National Institute of Health got to do with it?
Re: That is new? (Score:2)
Perfectly safe. (Score:3)
"Our product is perfectly safe. Just so you know, we're recording every second of you using our product just in case."
"In case of what?"
"Nothing at all because it's perfectly safe."
Can't wait until they start giving out free flights for 737s because of how safe it is.
Malaysia MH370 and all others lost. (Score:4, Insightful)
Would have been fucking nice to have this damn tracking system when we were losing planes full of humans in the 21st Century.
NOW you suddenly care. Talk about a WTF.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
NOW you suddenly care.
This shit again... who the fuck are you talking to??
Re: (Score:2)
NOW you suddenly care.
This shit again... who the fuck are you talking to??
The 21st Century. The FAA. Common F. Sense. Plane full of GPS-enabled "smart"phones, and we still manage to lose entire aircraft full of people?
Maybe YOU can explain that shit before asking "who" next time.
Re: Malaysia MH370 and all others lost. (Score:1)
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is a bit harder and complex than you think it is?
Tracking thousands of objects in realtime when they are 5 miles off the ground and travelling 600mph is not as easy as you think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is a bit harder and complex than you think it is?
Tracking thousands of objects in realtime when they are 5 miles off the ground and travelling 600mph is not as easy as you think it is.
And yet when it comes to humans destroying shit, we can aim a smart missile at a front door and hit it every time.
Priorities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that GPS is receiver only, all those smart phones only read gps signals, they dont transmit. Have you got any idea how much power would be required for a single phone to send a signal thousands of kms and why would any phone want to carry a battery that big ? Even if the phone did transmit via the internet for what purpose ? The plane would still crash, and theyw oudl still be dead.
Drop my weak smartphone argument for a moment. As I stated before, we have had commercial-grade GPS technology that contains Stratum-3 capability in standalone mode without a GPS signal, and Stratum-1 capability with GPS, for decades now. And that's but one form of tracking a plane can contain. Hell, if it takes putting internet capability to further enable privacy robbing tracking just to not lose the plane, then do it.
And what the hell do you mean "for what purpose"?!? Ever think that a plane could go do
Re: (Score:2)
Can you share a single example where this has ever happened ?
THe same money invested on a feature that will never save anyone could save far more lives if given to healthcare.
Re:Malaysia MH370 and all others lost. (Score:5, Informative)
Would have been fucking nice to have this damn tracking system when we were losing planes full of humans in the 21st Century.
NOW you suddenly care. Talk about a WTF.
While I do agree that it would've been nice to have this tracking system sooner, no, they didn't just suddenly start caring now. The lack of realtime monitoring of systems has been an ongoing issue for many years, and a very well known one. There have been numerous attempts to devise solutions. There is also an issue of just plain old tracking: planes over the ocean get out of both radar and radio range, so they literally don't know where they are because that's just the physical limitation of radar, and of radio beacons on planes. Remote and/or undeveloped areas have limited radar and radio coverage too. This was the case with MH370: it flew out of radar range.
The change is ADS-B [wikipedia.org], which is the signal these sat are picking up. ADS-B devices are being made a mandatory piece of equipment on airplanes in a majority of airspaces around the world.
As for this particular sat system, it's new. Aireon was formed in 2011, a joint venture between Iridium (the satphone company) and Nav Canada, NATS (UK), and several European air traffic control systems, all with the stated goal of fixing this tracking and telemetry issue and making ADS-B reception available anywhere on the globe, without the range limitations of radar or radio. You will of course note 2011 is before MH370 happened; i.e., yeah they were trying to fix this issue before that tragedy. However, it was slow going. Aireon didn't launch its first ADS-B Iridium satellites until 2017 (thanks to SpaceX [flyingmag.com]), which is when this technology first became at least partially usable. It completed its sat constellation in 2019 (again thanks to a Falcon launch), finally marking full coverage operation. So no, they didn't "now suddenly care"; they've been getting this going, it just took time. Too much time, I would say.
Oh, and Malaysia Airlines is a launch customer [bbc.com] of this service. Yeah, they don't want MH370 to ever happen again either.
Re: (Score:1)
Would have been fucking nice to have this damn tracking system when we were losing planes full of humans in the 21st Century.
NOW you suddenly care. Talk about a WTF.
While I do agree that it would've been nice to have this tracking system sooner, no, they didn't just suddenly start caring now. The lack of realtime monitoring of systems has been an ongoing issue for many years, and a very well known one. There have been numerous attempts to devise solutions. There is also an issue of just plain old tracking: planes over the ocean get out of both radar and radio range, so they literally don't know where they are because that's just the physical limitation of radar, and of radio beacons on planes. Remote and/or undeveloped areas have limited radar and radio coverage too. This was the case with MH370: it flew out of radar range.
It few out of GPS range, and every other form of terrestrial and non-terrestrial form of communication we've ever devised? Plane full of GPS-enabled smartphones, disappears? We can put a Stratum-1 quality timing device capable of 3D lock on multiple GPS satellites inside of a 19" rackmount form-factor, and somehow the fucking infotainment system is the priority? We can keep track of a lunar rover on a planet 150 million miles away, but still manage to completely lose planes within our own atmosphere?
The
Re:Malaysia MH370 and all others lost. (Score:4, Informative)
Plane full of GPS-enabled smartphones, disappears?
The phones all knew exactly where they were. The GPS satellites told them.
Did you think the satellites are keeping track of the phones? That's not how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Plane full of GPS-enabled smartphones, disappears?
The phones all knew exactly where they were. The GPS satellites told them. Did you think the satellites are keeping track of the phones? That's not how it works.
Must be why no one ever worries about GPS data being abused by corporations collecting it. Back in the day my damn Blackberry would start dinging away receiving data when we dipped below 17,000 feet.
Drop my weak smartphone argument for a moment. As I stated before, we have had commercial-grade GPS technology that contains Stratum-3 capability in standalone mode without a GPS signal, and Stratum-1 capability with GPS, for decades now. And that's but one form of tracking a plane can contain. Hell, if it t
Re: (Score:1)
Must be why no one ever worries about GPS data being abused by corporations collecting it.
They don't worry about it from the GPS satellites...
They worry about the phone sending that information out.
Back in the day my damn Blackberry would start dinging away receiving data when we dipped below 17,000 feet.
So we just need to blanket the oceans with cell towers...
There might just be a better way, mightn't there.
Drop my weak smartphone argument for a moment.
And change it for a weak plane tracking argument instead?
The plane also already knows where it is. You need a way for the plane to send data back to someplace else so everyone else knows where the plane (and all the cellphones) are.
Which is exactly what the headline of the article mentions.
Air Traffic Control should be upgraded to track plans 100% of the time around the planet with primary and backup comms. You should not be able to obtain a license to fly (especially internationally) if your airplane cannot provide that.
Tot
Re: (Score:2)
For what purpose ? What exactly would those dozens of satellites do with billions of messages every few seconds from the billions of phones ?
Re: (Score:1)
You would use a GPS receiver to get the coordinates, then you would use something else, a commercial satellite phone network, to send the coordinates to ATC. You could even use HF (unreliably).Pretty much off the shelf technologies available for decades.
BTW most consumer grade cell phones dont use GPS and don't have a GPS receiver, the cell phone towers are used to triangulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's a lot to unpack in your post:
- I don't think you understand how GPS works. Just because you know where you are by looking at your GPS doesn't mean *I* know. MH370 knew exactly where it was. Everyone else lost it.
- Not sure what you think GPS has to do with mobile phone coverage either. The two are not related. Having smartphones on a plane doesn't help anyone know where the plane is when the phones have no mobile coverage.
- I read your Stratum-1 timing device sentence 3 times and gave up trying to u
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. There have been commercial satellite phones now for decades. So all you have to do is put a GPS receiver on the plane and then send the coordinates back on a commercial satellite phone. I am sure there are many other ways using the existing infrastructure. Even sending the coordinates on HF would be better than nothing.
MH370 (Score:2)
Tracking doesn't stop the happening. It just helps the investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea there was no way to do it without a special satellite, although its good to have more satellites, doesnt however make sense. You can put a GPS receiver on a plane then send back the coordinates on a sat phone, or even HF albeit unreliably, periodically, so it has been possible with technology even available for some time now. The satellite phone has been around now for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
> Would have been fucking nice to have this damn tracking system
Yes, everybody agrees that it's better to have good things sooner. Literally nobody disagrees.
Bitching about it is one of the pitfalls taught in the book Loserthink [amzn.to].
It's worthwhile to learn what not to waste your time on.
Re: (Score:2)
People are so arrogant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does tracking help a runnaway plane ? You could have had a few chaser planes right beside that Malaysian flight, they wouldnt be able to do a single thing.
At least try and pretend you have a heart regarding possibly losing a loved one, and maybe recognize the water survival features built into every aircraft are not there for decoration. Not every plane that goes down, takes all lives with it immediately. Time, is critical at that point.
So is fucking location.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to voting for free healthcare to help people who are actually alive ?
Re: (Score:2)
> At least try and pretend you have a heart regarding possibly losing a loved one, As opposed to voting for free healthcare to help people who are actually alive ?
I'm all for it. Unfortunately, we've listened for years of promises of this in the US. From every flavor of liar. Even listened to lies about making it "affordable". You have a better chance of surviving a water landing than getting free health care, no matter how desperately it may be needed or justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats untrue, everybody in Australia has free healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
> You have a better chance of surviving a water landing than getting free health care, no matter how desperately it may be needed or justified. Thats untrue, everybody in Australia has free healthcare.
That's fantastic. Seriously. America, for better or worse, has a completely different responsibility than almost every other country on the planet. Because of this, the comparisons become irrelevant rather quickly. America, spends a lot, on defense. Again, for better or worse.
And remember "free" healthcare, isn't actually free. It costs Australia upwards of 10% of their GDP, and personal or societal taxes usually reflect that. And to be quite honest, healthcare may not be free for anyone after the pl
Re: (Score:2)
How come you didnt say that in your original statement ?
> And remember "free" healthcare, isn't actually free. It costs Australia upwards of 10% of their GDP, and personal or societal taxes usually reflect that. And to be
They want to be sure (Score:2)
...that they find them when they drop like flies.
Certify but verify (Score:2)
"FAA Tracking All Boeing 737 Max Flights Around World With Satellites"
Excellent idea! Perhaps the FAA was just a wee bit hasty in letting these pigs back into the air, but at least they're willing to make sure crash victims' families will have some idea how much money it will take to bring the bodies home.
Whats wrong... (Score:2)
Why are they running away from their home just to return ?
Bassackwards (Score:1)
At least ... (Score:2)
we can literally monitor it (Score:2)
literally monitor it
nice. Because "monitor" has some non-literal meaning which would normally apply in that sentence.
Good to know (Score:2)
Good to know that when plummeting from 30,000 feet.My first concern would definitely I hope they find my remnants quickly. With that taken care of I can focus on other things, like OMG I AM GONNA DIE.
Cheaper than Air Marshals (Score:2)
You could move all the Air Marshals into the cockpits, providing each of them with a cell phone and video camera. That might leave some post-crash evidence.
But no, I think the satellite coverage / telemetry might work out better in the long run. Gotta give all those satellites something to do (besides streaming video and endangering the ISS, right?).