All Flights Required To Have GPS Tracking System By 2020

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Why wait until 2020 to enforce this rule? Why not require airlines to comply by next week and fine them for every day they are not in compliance. That would set a fire under their asses.

The FAA is accelerating the implementation of the next generation of aviation tracking following the disappearance of the Malaysian Airline Boeing 777. The agency has been working on a system called Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, or ADS-B, radio network. It allows controllers to monitor an aircraft from the time it takes off to the time it lands, using GPS satellite tracking, rather than ground-based radar.
Click to expand...
 
Here's another idea, don't have a switch in the cockpit for the pilots to turn off the transponder.

Fucking 2014 people.
 
It's completely unnecessary and will just drive up the cost of flying for the consumer. There are over 30 million commercial passenger flights (not counting cargo flights) in the world per year. All that data has to be sent to satellites, bandwidth has to be paid for, and consumers will have to pay for it.

Just because one flight disappeared without a good trace in decades of recent aviation history doesn't justify me paying more for a plane ticket.

Write your congressional delegation and have them prevent the FAA creating more regulations that just tax the flying public for no good reason.
 
Aluisious said:
Here's another idea, don't have a switch in the cockpit for the pilots to turn off the transponder.

Fucking 2014 people.
Click to expand...

This has been addressed over and over and over, pilots need to be able to disable electric systems without having to run all across the airplane to do it. Again, ONE incident in decades of flying and with more than 30 million commercial passenger flights per recent years doesn't justify kneejerk reactions.

Who gives a flying fuck that some airplane with less than 300 people on board cannot easily be found. On a global scale that loss could not be more irrelevant and doesn't justify endangering the rest of the flying public by eliminating tools pilots have at their disposal to actually save the lives of their passengers.

Nevermind that it has yet to be proven that the transponder was intentionally turned off.
 
I just want to know why every goddamn phone has to be trackable by GPS but airplanes don't? Last I checked my phone can't crash into a skyscraper if someone loses track of it.
 
dewbak75 said:
I just want to know why every goddamn phone has to be trackable by GPS but airplanes don't? Last I checked my phone can't crash into a skyscraper if someone loses track of it.
Click to expand...

why not? can i borrow it for a moment to prove that it can crash into a skyscraper?
 
Thuleman said:
This has been addressed over and over and over, pilots need to be able to disable electric systems without having to run all across the airplane to do it. Again, ONE incident in decades of flying and with more than 30 million commercial passenger flights per recent years doesn't justify kneejerk reactions.

Who gives a flying fuck that some airplane with less than 300 people on board cannot easily be found. On a global scale that loss could not be more irrelevant and doesn't justify endangering the rest of the flying public by eliminating tools pilots have at their disposal to actually save the lives of their passengers.

Nevermind that it has yet to be proven that the transponder was intentionally turned off.
Click to expand...

The idea of turning off electronic systems in the modern age is a joke. New planes are so full of interactive systems turning things off would crash a plane faster out of confusion. There have been multiple crashes now where the last thing pilots are heard saying on the black box is "what do you think it's doing now?"

And by the way, is there a switch to turn off the black box? Pretending the transponder is ever going to be an issue, please. Get a grip.
 
Just add a tax to the price of a ticket to pay for it. That surely has to be cheaper than all the millions each country is spending daily to search for one lost flight. Just makes sense.
 
Wow, way to do your background research, the article is utter bullshit. I expect better here. And here is why it is rubbish.

A) The ADS-B mandate for all aircraft, Part 23, Part 25, Part 27, and Part 29 has been in place since long before the airliner vanished

B) Europe actually is requiring this by 2016, and that mandate was also put in place well before this incident

C) ADS-B does not enable GPS tracking. It means each aircrafts transponder will put out messages on 1090 mhz broadcasting WAAS GPS position information. All this enables is for aircraft in the surrounding area can see your aircraft, and allows for greater resolution of collision avoidance.

D) A switch for electrical systems ABSOLUTELY needs to be in pilots hands. A pilot needs to be able to have the ability to power shed non-critical systems in the event of an electrical issue. The reason being if the charging system fails, the Pilots can Power Shed to keep critical systems active as long as possible until the batteries charge dissipates (not directed at the article but to the other member saying pilots shouldnt have control)

E) This is not for increased safety, this is a cost saving measure by the industry. It means that extremely expensive ground based radar systems wont be installed at airports anymore, and other will be deactivated once they fail meaning 0 maintenance cost.
 
Thuleman said:
Who gives a flying fuck that some airplane with less than 300 people on board cannot easily be found. On a global scale that loss could not be more irrelevant and doesn't justify endangering the rest of the flying public by eliminating tools pilots have at their disposal to actually save the lives of their passengers.
Click to expand...

Sorry but your complete disregard for loss of any human life at all, whether it is 1 or 300 or whatever the amount is utterly deplorable and disgusting. I hope you do not do anything in your life that involves the safety of others.
 
Aluisious said:
The idea of turning off electronic systems in the modern age is a joke. New planes are so full of interactive systems turning things off would crash a plane faster out of confusion. There have been multiple crashes now where the last thing pilots are heard saying on the black box is "what do you think it's doing now?"

And by the way, is there a switch to turn off the black box? Pretending the transponder is ever going to be an issue, please. Get a grip.
Click to expand...

The Black Box is a non-safety critical piece of equipment. Can it be disabled? no. Can it fail at a significantly higher rate than any other avionics in the cockpit? Absolutely
 
Steve said:
Why wait until 2020 to enforce this rule? Why not require airlines to comply by next week and fine them for every day they are not in compliance. That would set a fire under their asses.
Click to expand...

Because retro-fitting aircraft takes fucking time...lots of time. This isn't like pushing a Windows update and calling it a day.

-annoyed former avionics tech
 
till all this happened i though they were all being tracked by GPS.
 
Obviously we need better systems in place, but the real problem is the huge cost of upgrades and certifications that will be required to install gps upgrades. And that's a cash cow for the installers, and if the airlines could pass the cost on to customers without a public outcry, they would, since they really have nothing to lose with this move.

Military aircraft have this tech, installing it on civilian planes is not that expensive if done the right way by standardizing equipment and protocols. The concerns are of a financial, political and ethical nature rather than technological.
 
wont let me edit my first post.

out side it being a military aircraft there is no reason for an aircraft to turn off its transponder if a plane is in the dire of a situation wouldn't you want the transponder on so we can find the plane?

just saying. maybe the transponder should have a batter backup to keep itself powered if the pilot has to cut electric to save power.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
Sorry but your complete disregard for loss of any human life at all, whether it is 1 or 300 or whatever the amount is utterly deplorable and disgusting. I hope you do not do anything in your life that involves the safety of others.
Click to expand...

He's saying that statistically speaking air travel is exceedingly safe. In the larger scheme of things, he's right. It doesn't imply disregard for life at all.

If you are concerned about saving lives, spend a tiny fractions of the hundreds of millions or more likely billions this will need on some of the diseases in 3rd world countries that are completely ignored by medical science, and you'll save literally millions of lives. But of course that doesn't make life any easier for us right?

Its all about perspective and not being hypocritical.
 
I've always wondered why there isn't another black box beacon that floats. It'd at least give you a general idea and the math wizards can probably get you closer by calculating currents.
 
Filter said:
wont let me edit my first post.

out side it being a military aircraft there is no reason for an aircraft to turn off its transponder if a plane is in the dire of a situation wouldn't you want the transponder on so we can find the plane?

just saying. maybe the transponder should have a batter backup to keep itself powered if the pilot has to cut electric to save power.
Click to expand...

you dont understand how a transponder works. It is an Interrogation/Reply system. In order for a transponder to send anything out it needs to be interrogated by a ground station or a TCAS in a nearby aircraft. And even then, the transponder does not put out its position. The position is determined by the timing of the interragation and reply response. All it does to the ground station is puts a blip on the controllers screen, and those are not recorded which means the transponder would have done absolutely nothing in terms of located the aircraft after it vanished, only its last known position which we already have through military radar
 
VladDracule said:
D) A switch for electrical systems ABSOLUTELY needs to be in pilots hands. A pilot needs to be able to have the ability to power shed non-critical systems in the event of an electrical issue. The reason being if the charging system fails, the Pilots can Power Shed to keep critical systems active as long as possible until the batteries charge dissipates (not directed at the article but to the other member saying pilots shouldnt have control)
Click to expand...
I totally get the need for this.

What I don't get is why these systems can't have battery backup? They run on the plane's power unless the pilot remove's power to them. The second they lose power, they should immediately switch to a battery backup system to stay live and transmitting so someone, somewhere is receiving their signal even if the pilots on board switched the circuit breaker.

This would effectively eliminate the ability to ever shut off the transponder.

This seems like almost a "no shit why hasn't anyone thought of this before" kind of idea, but I can't see a reason why it hasn't been implemented yet other than cost.
 
cageymaru said:
Just add a tax to the price of a ticket to pay for it. That surely has to be cheaper than all the millions each country is spending daily to search for one lost flight. Just makes sense.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense at all to tax 100% of the flying public 100% of the time to account for the 0.00000001% of times when it would be good to have the info.

TheMadHatterXxX said:
Sorry but your complete disregard for loss of any human life at all, whether it is 1 or 300 or whatever the amount is utterly deplorable and disgusting. I hope you do not do anything in your life that involves the safety of others.
Click to expand...

Eh ...
Check out http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ which shows that over 100,000 people died today (statistically) of all kinds of causes.

When 300 out of 7+ *billion* people die then it is a statistically insignificant number and should not be used to increase costs of goods and services to the remaining people.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
I totally get the need for this.

What I don't get is why these systems can't have battery backup? They run on the plane's power unless the pilot remove's power to them. The second they lose power, they should immediately switch to a battery backup system to stay live and transmitting so someone, somewhere is receiving their signal even if the pilots on board switched the circuit breaker.

This would effectively eliminate the ability to ever shut off the transponder.

This seems like almost a "no shit why hasn't anyone thought of this before" kind of idea, but I can't see a reason why it hasn't been implemented yet other than cost.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what they do dude. If aircraft power and charging system dies it runs off the battery, those batteries dont have enough power to keep every avionics system active indefinitely. Im not only an Engineer in the Avionics field, developing these very systems, but im also a Pilot in both GA and Rotorcraft. I know what im talking about
 
Uhg didnt expect so much fail on a tech site, especially from the editor of one. To all you armchair pilots out there telling aeronautical engineers how their planes should be built, SHUT THE FUCK UP. That is all.
 
Filter said:
out side it being a military aircraft there is no reason for an aircraft to turn off its transponder
Click to expand...

There are lots of reasons, and civilian pilots routinely turn their transponders off, so much so that pretty much every transponder has a stand-by setting (powered on, but not responding). Google is your friend if you want to know more.
 
VladDracule said:
Thats exactly what they do dude. If aircraft power and charging system dies it runs off the battery, those batteries dont have enough power to keep every avionics system active indefinitely. Im not only an Engineer in the Avionics field, developing these very systems, but im also a Pilot in both GA and Rotorcraft. I know what im talking about
Click to expand...
So what your saying it is the equivalent of having a large Universal Power Supply running a rack of computers rather than smaller individual UPS's running individual computer?

Maybe what I meant to say is that things like transponders and other tracking systems need their own separate backup that doesn't power anything else. The black boxes have this, why can't transponders?

Am I still missing something?
 
Aluisious said:
Here's another idea, don't have a switch in the cockpit for the pilots to turn off the transponder.

Fucking 2014 people.
Click to expand...

Says the non-pilot.

Okay, quick background: I fly recreationally, not for a living, the commercial certificate is for insurance / skill improvement.

Commercial Pilot Certificate: ASEL, AMEL (ASES yet)
Also: IFR, Complex, High Performance, High Altitude, Tailwheel

Okay, first, a transponder isn't even always required in many planes. Heck, it's not technically required in all airspace. Even when they're required, can you imagine an ATC display at KORD, KMSP, KLAX, KDFW, or any other big airport if every single time the 'Master' is flipped the transponder starts broadcasting? The screen would be a littered mess even with ASDE X ground surveillance!

As a pilot, quite often you don't flip the transponder on until you get to the end of the runway and are ready to tell the tower (example): 'Oshkosh Tower, Mooney three seven two golf tango, ready for takeoff runway one eight for VFR westbound information Romeo.' The ATIS information isn't strictly necessary, but if it changed (new readings) the tower will tell you so you can update your information.

Now some might flip it on during taxi, bigger airports will list it if they require it during taxi, but even they don't want it on if the plane is sitting there. At many airports, it can create a headache if they don't have the latest / greatest (and very expensive) ASDE X system.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
So what your saying it is the equivalent of having a large Universal Power Supply running a rack of computers rather than smaller individual UPS's running individual computer?

Maybe what I meant to say is that things like transponders and other tracking systems need their own separate backup that doesn't power anything else. The black boxes have this, why can't transponders?

Am I still missing something?
Click to expand...

Unlike a server rack, weight in an aircraft is a premium. What do you really need, and I bloody well mean NEED to fly in case of catastrophe? That's what you keep running, fark everything else.

Batteries are also a HUGE headache in aircraft. Go look at the regulations for ELT batteries. Heck, go look at the regulations for modifying aircraft (at all beyond the paint job, and even the paint is regulated) and get back to me. The FAA is extremely risk averse, just like Transport Canada, and the EASA. Adding batteries to transponders (and it would have to be directly in the transponder, which would then have to go through certification, RVSM cert no less), and aircraft flying over 28k feet typically have 2 of them. You'd likely be changing the physical profile, which would mean changing the panel, and that's a lot of man hours of labor to install.

I'll tell you something else: it takes YEARS to get a modification to an existing aircraft or new piece of equipment approved. It costs hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of testing time to prove it's not dangerous and works as advertised.
 
Thuleman said:
Eh ...
Check out http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ which shows that over 100,000 people died today (statistically) of all kinds of causes.

When 300 out of 7+ *billion* people die then it is a statistically insignificant number and should not be used to increase costs of goods and services to the remaining people.
Click to expand...

The death of 1 is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic :eek:

In such a reliable industry like the airlines the failures or incidents are rare so we must learn from them when they happen ... it sounds like the GPS modifications are not about plane disappearance but more about avoiding near air incidents and such ... nothing wrong with changing the rules as technology allows them to change

9-11 forced us to improve our security which lagged many countries around the world ... now with improved technology we can use PreCheck to back off a little (by verifying flyer identities prior to them entering the secure areas of the airport) ... I am happy to see the industry and government modify their procedures as technology improves rather than forcing us to stay with antiquated processes simply because they appear cheaper (and that includes using GPS more effectively) ;)
 
Inglix_the_Mad said:
Unlike a server rack, weight in an aircraft is a premium. What do you really need, and I bloody well mean NEED to fly in case of catastrophe? That's what you keep running, fark everything else.

Batteries are also a HUGE headache in aircraft. Go look at the regulations for ELT batteries. Heck, go look at the regulations for modifying aircraft (at all beyond the paint job, and even the paint is regulated) and get back to me. The FAA is extremely risk averse, just like Transport Canada, and the EASA. Adding batteries to transponders (and it would have to be directly in the transponder, which would then have to go through certification, RVSM cert no less), and aircraft flying over 28k feet typically have 2 of them. You'd likely be changing the physical profile, which would mean changing the panel, and that's a lot of man hours of labor to install.

I'll tell you something else: it takes YEARS to get a modification to an existing aircraft or new piece of equipment approved. It costs hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of testing time to prove it's not dangerous and works as advertised.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is this...Black Boxes have had flight ready batteries for decades. We have had transponders for decades. Can't something from existing tech be adopted and why wasn't it adopted already?

Just trying to understand guys. Don't get mad at me, I'm asking honestly. This is a stupidly simple concept, but I'm sure the implementation is anything but simple. The reasons presented thus far *seemed* weak and nothing that couldn't be overcome. If it was simple to implement I'm sure it would have by now. I'm wondering why it hasn't.

Thanks for the explanations.
 
Thuleman said:
It's completely unnecessary and will just drive up the cost of flying for the consumer. There are over 30 million commercial passenger flights (not counting cargo flights) in the world per year. All that data has to be sent to satellites, bandwidth has to be paid for, and consumers will have to pay for it.

Just because one flight disappeared without a good trace in decades of recent aviation history doesn't justify me paying more for a plane ticket.

Write your congressional delegation and have them prevent the FAA creating more regulations that just tax the flying public for no good reason.
Click to expand...

Given how much money we are dumping into trying to find planes that crash if this solves that problem or limits the search area I would think we would bring the costs down.
 
Batteries on planes and safety: give me a break, as soon as you have 200 passengers on a flight, you're talking probably 800 batteries brought aboard. 1 more for a transponder? The thing can be basically the size of a sat phone.

"Saving power in an emergency..." Ugh for fucks sake, it's a transponder, it's not a Death Star ray. Itty bitty battery would have saved this massive fucking cluster going on in the Indian Ocean now.

You could tape a sat phone to the back of a chair and track the thing around the world, just in case the plane gets lost. It doesn't have to ping every airport traffic control all the time, just leave records of last position on a server.
 
I always figured with today's day and age it was a given that they already had GPS tracking.
 
Very depressing how many people dont even understand how GPS works. Guys, GPS is not a tracking system in the way you think it is. GPS is a passive receiver. We have satellites in space that bathe the earth with a certain frequency. Your GPS receives this frequency and then triangulates it's own position from it. There is no handshake, no communication, no broadcast back to the satellites or anything to inform anyone in the world where you are. When people talk about being tracked via your GPS in your cellphone, what they mean is that your phone is relaying the position it has on the GPS through the cellular/wireless network. The GPS itself cannot communicate with other devices, it is a listening device only. The NSA cant track you if your GPS is on by your phones cellular/wifi antenna is not. The same holds true of airplanes. You dont "put a gps in an airplane" to track it. You put a GPS + some kind of broadcasting device so the plane can send information about it's position that it learns.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
So what your saying it is the equivalent of having a large Universal Power Supply running a rack of computers rather than smaller individual UPS's running individual computer?

Maybe what I meant to say is that things like transponders and other tracking systems need their own separate backup that doesn't power anything else. The black boxes have this, why can't transponders?

Am I still missing something?
Click to expand...

The individual power draw of these systems require some massive power to stay on. You could install batteries to power these things for a few minutes but that would add hundreds of pounds of weight to an aircraft.
 
Thuleman said:
Just because one flight disappeared without a good trace in decades of recent aviation history doesn't justify me paying more for a plane ticket.
Click to expand...

It's all about you, isn't it? No one else matters. :mad:

aHLbmzv.jpg
 
Thuleman said:
It doesn't make sense at all to tax 100% of the flying public 100% of the time to account for the 0.00000001% of times when it would be good to have the info.



Eh ...
Check out http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ which shows that over 100,000 people died today (statistically) of all kinds of causes.

When 300 out of 7+ *billion* people die then it is a statistically insignificant number and should not be used to increase costs of goods and services to the remaining people.
Click to expand...

and yet a few kids get shot or stabbed in school and people think it is a big deal. Or a plane flies into a building and people think that is a big deal.
 
The future, I can see it now... Passenger airplanes are tracked with GPS. Heh.
 
dewbak75 said:
I just want to know why every goddamn phone has to be trackable by GPS but airplanes don't? Last I checked my phone can't crash into a skyscraper if someone loses track of it.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show that the FCC has better foresight than the FAA does. Perhaps they should switch jobs.
 
VladDracule said:
Thats exactly what they do dude. If aircraft power and charging system dies it runs off the battery, those batteries dont have enough power to keep every avionics system active indefinitely. Im not only an Engineer in the Avionics field, developing these very systems, but im also a Pilot in both GA and Rotorcraft. I know what im talking about
Click to expand...

What? Turning into a bat isn't good enough for you? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top