13,000 cycles is middle-aged for a jet. Well broken in, but a long way short of the scrap yard.
Simplifying mightily … there are backup gyro & pitot static systems which are separate from, and much simpler than, the primary systems. And which drive separate standby instrument displays. But they’re still a lot more complex than the simple gear installed in light planes.
The simple answer is that it costs money and some airlines don’t consider it necessary. ACARS is used for routine data gathering, the fact that it can be used to pinpoint the position of a downed airliner is an unintended side affect. If an airline can collect the data they need by using ACARS over VHF and HF then why would they spend more money for a satellite service? Even if it is a few cents per passenger, when you’re carrying 50,000,000 passengers your ability to make a profit for the year can come down to a few cents per passenger.
The thing is the chances of an accident in the first place for any one airline is remote, on top of that the chances that having satellite uplink would make a difference finding the wreckage is even more remote. I think AF447 is the only accident where it has helped. MH370 had ACARS and I believe it was disabled or failed along with the other transmitting devices. This latest one is probably very close to where they lost radar contact. Once the weather clears they’ll find it.
The mob I work for doesn’t have ACARS or anything and it’s not exactly something I lose sleep over. If I don’t care and I’m the one in the front seat I can’t see management caring to do it. That is money that could be better spent elsewhere on things that make a difference to the day to day operation of the airline.
If the various aviation authorities wanted to make it mandatory for safety reasons then we’d all toe the line and install it, but in the meantime its a purely commercial decision and locating hypothetical lost airliners is not something that would factor highly in commercial decisions.
because someone can sue them for not providing the coordinates for a rescue effort. This is literally pennies per person.
The cost of this is so small that it makes them look stupid.
this is the 2nd airplane lost in a year. You think the public isn’t gun shy over this?
Personally, I have no desire to fly on any of these carriers because I’ve seen the rigid lack of thought that goes into their procedures.
Update: the wreckage has been found.
One of the things I have read is that Asian, Middle Eastern liners will place a very senior captain with a newish pilot, while N American and European will have both at roughly the same level of experience. Apparently the reason is that even new airline pilots in those countries often come from prior flying backgrounds, often military (or in one famous case, astronaut!), while in the Asian or Mid East, they are new to flying period.
The advantage of course is that the pairing allows for good training, Might explain the “cultural” issue that many seem to focus on. A less experienced person is less likely to speak up against a senior whatever the background.
Show evidence of a successful lawsuit please. People can sue for anything they like. If there is a successful suit then that may be the commercial impetus the airlines need, but until that happens?
No, it is not. This aircraft was never “lost” in the way MH370 was. It was found within 10km of the last known position. Finding wreckage in crap weather isn’t easy even when you know where to look. It is normal for it to take a while. Do you really think the public are worried about whether their wrecked aeroplane is found after it crashes? If that worried them they wouldn’t be flying in the first place.
That’s your prerogative of course, though I suspect you know jack about what thought goes into their procedures. Most people fly with whoever is cheap and gets them where they are going to. Live sat tracking doesn’t figure into their thinking, and why should it? Do you know what airlines in the world have satellite tracking? Do you have a list you consult when booking a flight? Do you think domestic airlines in the USA would use satellite tracking?
I think there was some bizarre public expectation that the position of every airliner is known to the metre. MH370 bought home the realisation that this is not the case and never has been the case, and it is not normally an issue. MH370 was a freak occurrence and it was possibly deliberate.
Now you seem to have trouble understanding the fact that if there is no commercial reason to do something, and there is no regulatory requirement to do something, then it won’t be done. You can say it makes them look stupid all you like but unless the airlines themselves can see a real benefit to it, it won’t happen. Now there are already airlines that have some form of it and that’s because they saw a commercial benefit in data gathering while their aircraft are outside VHF range.
I’m not saying I agree with it, but the answer to your question is really simple, airlines that don’t use satellite for tracking don’t see a value in it. You aren’t going to convince them otherwise.
I’m curious about what specific problem you are trying to solve. Is it to prevent an MH370 occurrence where all tracking devices either failed or were turned off? Is it to provide some immediate telemetry ala AF447 and the ACARS messages? Or is it to help pinpoint the location of a crash site? These are all different problems and the best solution for each is not necessarily the best for the others.
Well, as a last resort, keeping the airplane flying in a controllable manner is what most pilots are really trying to do.
A friends sig line is : “I don’t know where I’m at but I can tell you how fast I am going.”
Communication with the ground is usually the least helpful thing a pilot can do if it takes anything away from flying the airplane.
As a passenger & if I was using my little SPOT for the wife’s peace of mind… scratch that, she just wants to know where to find the body so she can collect and not have to wait all those years for a death certificate.
Knowing where to look would save the governments some money, so lets do it.
IMO, doing it for the comfort of the relatives of those on the airplane is way down on the list because of the survivability of an out of control jet airliner.
Miracle on the Hudson not withstanding. ( It is called a miracle for a reason. Not taking anything away from Sully, he was the carrier of the miracle. )
you don’t think companies with 150 dead people don’t get sued over every last damn thing?
“lost” as in crashed. If you’re on a plane that ditches into the sea do think 7 cents added to the cost of your ticket is a waste of money? What else can you live without on the plane? Seat belts, emergency oxygen, escape slides?
I’ve worked with commercial aircraft for 27 years but if you want to school me on ground procedures by all means. I’ve worked with carriers from all over the world. The social hierarchy of “don’t question authority” is very prevalent in the Pacific rim. I’ve watched them do the stupidest things because it’s written into policy to do it that way. Or to be more precise, they can’t deal with anything that isn’t specifically written down. The crash in SFO started with this rigid mindset and it quickly spun out of control.
Not knowing what they do and do not have is different than expecting them to use good equipment. Most people expect this.
I don’t think it’s bizarre at all. I think the public expects air carriers to have the same or better capabilities as private aircraft. When GPS’s first came on line pilots were using them in the cockpit because they were far more accurate and less prone to failure than the INS equipment used to navigate over the ocean. I would much prefer that pilots use the most accurate equipment available and certainly I would expect carriers to equip their aircraft as such.
So you have no cite for a successful lawsuit against an airline for “not providing a location for SAR”?
If it’s “lost” as in crashed, then it’s not the 2nd, there’s been other crashes. I think you are moving the goal posts. You originally said “lost” because you didn’t know it had been found. So do you think the public are gun shy about crashes or about aircraft disappearing? Cause there’s only been one that disappeared.
[quote]
I’ve worked with commercial aircraft for 27 years but if you want to school me on ground procedures by all means. I’ve worked with carriers from all over the world. The social hierarchy of “don’t question authority” is very prevalent in the Pacific rim. I’ve watched them do the stupidest things because it’s written into policy to do it that way. Or to be more precise, they can’t deal with anything that isn’t specifically written down. The crash in SFO started with this rigid mindset and it quickly spun out of control.
[quote]
Yes the SFO crash was a disaster, so was the Colgan crash BTW, a couple of American pilots who couldn’t fly an aeroplane, then there was the Resolute Bay crash, a couple of western pilots there who couldn’t get their shit together, including an FO who was not assertive enough to over-rule the authority of the Captain. The AF447 crash involved a couple of guys who couldn’t recover from a stall. It’s easy to turn a complex chain of events into a short statement that puts the crew in a bad light, whether they deserve it or not.
And they do use good equipment.
You’ve misunderstood me. Of course the pilots know exactly where they are, we all have FMS that use all nav sources including GPS, INS, VOR, DME etc to arrive at a best computed position. What I was referring to was the public’s expectation that ATC know exactly where every aeroplane is. That will happen one day, the satellite ADS that is coming in 2017 will go a long way toward fixing that, but it’s not that way now and hasn’t been that way since 1903, and it hasn’t been a big problem.
You seem to think that “there’s no reason NOT to do something” is the same as having a reason TO do something. Airline management need a reason to do something, a reason to spend the money, and yes, even if it equates to 7c per passenger.
The company I work for encourages us to shutdown an engine during the taxi after landing because it saves about 15c per passenger. Pennies per passenger x a lot of passengers is a lot of pennies.
No. you have a cite that it serves no purpose?
It’s the 2nd major crash in the region in a short period of time. There’s no goal post beyond the obvious anxiety this causes people or the waste of resources used to find an airplane that should be easy to locate. Who is picking up the tab for that?
The SFO crash was done in clear weather with a check pilot on board. there was no complex chain of events. This is in contrast to the Air France crash which was a non-stop nightmare of system failures.
It has been a big problem finding lost aircraft. That’s the whole point.
It’s a bad point. There’s been no problem in general finding downed aircraft. There has been a problem finding one, MH370. What other problems do you think there have been?
You do know that the recent one has been found right? Quite close to where the transponder signal was lost?
As a public person (pubie?) in the United States this is close to what I expected, at least in the US.
For those active in the thread I would pose more questions.
What other cost effective technology that can be used to find where a plane goes down? Whether companies find it cost effective to use them is up for debate; and debate away.
Is there technology that would help planes not go down that would negate the need of a ‘downed plane’ technology? If a plane gets into trouble is there a cost effective way for a flight crew to let someone else other than a controller know that ‘bad shit’ is going to happen?
I know that all the details of the last plane going down is now known, and it may take years for this to happen, so this will leave a lot of this up for debate. However it seems that we have a knowledgeable people…so knowledge me.
Actually, the US network seems to be primarily FAA, with a backup DoD role. At any rate, there’s not a separate US air defense radar network- the FAA radars and DoD radars are one in the same. (look up “Joint Surveillance System”).
Beyond that, I suspect that the sheer density of small, medium and large airports in the US means that we likely have a more comprehensive radar network than a country like Indonesia or Malaysia, which probably only has radar coverage for a few hundred miles around major airports due to cost and geographic constraints.
Not crashing at all would be best but no such gizmo yet.
I still vote for a little 'SPOT™" unit mounted on top & outside the fuselage and just behind the cockpit with no internal access except blowing a hole in the airplane. Pinging the satellites once a minute with enough battery backup to run an additional 24 hrs min with total electrical failure. 2 D batteries would do for the jump to one minute intervals vs the 10 minute interval for 24 hrs in the one I use.
System is there, cost is small but unless the FAA, the world air carriers or enough public out cry happens, Like Richard says, it ain’t gonna happen. 
If you’re asking if it’s possible to design it so a pilot can trigger a ping even if the service is not paid for the answer is yes. The plane could do it automatically if it experiences any conditions programmed into it such as turbulence or a stall condition or failure of various systems. That could be a software upgrade.