Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

On Jun 4, 10:22*am, "Robert Swinney" wrote:
Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. *It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). *Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with *planes.

His Blackberry may be determining its location from the GPS
satellites, but it's reporting it to the ground base stations of the
mobile network wherever he is. It's not going to be able to track him
anywhere where he has "no signal" because it can't report his location
to a network it can't reach.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. *

It is in planes, though a flight-qualified GPS receiver costs a lot
more than that!

This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. *Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. *Am I wrong about this ???

You would have to report your position either to a satellite or via
over-the-horizon HF radio data. Both may well be in use already, but
perhaps not frequently enough, in that the last scheduled report might
have occurred minutes before the end of the flight.

There are also search and rescue satellites which can detect uplink
signals from emergency locator transponders (either they detect the
position of the transponder, or they read GPS coordinates that it
determines and transmits, or both, not sure) - but that requires that
the box with the antenna get triggered and have a chance to transmit
unobstructed after being triggered - not necessarily true if it's
attached to a piece of wreckage that was tumbling all the way down and
then promptly sunk.

Presumably if the pilots realize they are in trouble, they can pick up
a microphone and either via HF or via some satellite system (possibly
a company channel rather than anything ATC-official) tell someone
where they are - but that requires that they have time to react.

On Jun 4, 9:22*am, "Robert Swinney" wrote:
Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. *It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). *Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with *planes. *Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. *This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. *Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. *Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

Any cellphone can be located within about 10m. If need be. But it is
because of the transceiver status as you state.

It seems reasonable that they should be able to do the same with the
planes, but it would take a triangulation of known points to locate
it. Don't planes already have some sort of transponder on them to
announce to airports, etc? I don't know what sort of range they have,
but it doesn't seem to far fetched that they could be able to track a
plane.

But yes, GPS in it's own right does nothing for tracking the
receiver. Until that receiver announces where it is.

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

How long have people been saying that they can get a cold by going out
in the cold? As for the tech, let's imagine that airliners could be
tracked over the ocean for $35B. Since we accept (indirectly) all
these deaths http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30, then it would be
money poorly spent.

Wayne

a) Yes, the aircraft knows where it is via GPS.

b) That does not tell anyone else that.

c) The usual method for locating aircraft is RADAR, and that does not
cover the mid-ocean gap. Line of sight is the major issue.

RADAR is helped by transponders; an active response vs. reflected
energy. But they have the same line-of-sight limits as RADAR.

[Exercise for the student: You want line-of-sight views of all aircraft
crossing the Atlantic, from one side or the other. The aircraft are at
25000 feet or above. How tall a tower will you need on each end?]

d) The aircraft does have ACARS [look it up] to report both status and
swap messages with Dispatch. It can use VHF while near land {L-o-S
again}, HF radio, and Satcom. HF is unreliable and a PITA; Satcom is
$$$$.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Jun 4, 10:22*am, "Robert Swinney" wrote:
Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. *It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). *Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with *planes. *Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

In fact ACARS messages report back latitude/longitude from GPS.

I may as well go around suggesting in the news media that cars be
equipped with this remarkable new gizmo on the dash that will tell the
user how fast they are going.

Tim.

In fact ACARS messages report back latitude/longitude from GPS.

I may as well go around suggesting in the news media that cars be
equipped with this remarkable new gizmo on the dash that will tell the
user how fast they are going.

Tim.

Doesn't BMW have an anti-theft system whereby the car's position is
availabel at all times? I think I remember hearing that someone had his car
returned before he was even aware it had been stolen.

On Jun 4, 10:22*am, "Robert Swinney" wrote:
Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. *It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). *Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with *planes. *Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. *This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. *Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. *Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

You are correct.

This plane was (I'm sure) equipped with GPS based ADS-B (ADS-B 'out'
in the FAAs current 'Next Gen' parlance), broadcasting the planes GPS
location once every second, but just like radar there are no receivers
in the middle of the atlantic.

For the US the FAAs plan is to scrap as many costly primary radars and
secondary radars (not radar at all, it's the term for what talks to
the aircraft Mode S or ATCRBS transponder) as possible and rely on
ground stations that receive the ADS-B squit (the term for the once-
per-second transmission).

This effort is termed 'next gen' and the FAA just awarded a huge
contract to ITT to perform the service.
This will be the 1st time the FAA does not own and run the national
airspace position-reporting system, it'll just pay the contractor to
run the system and provide the service.

To track oceanic flights there would need to be an additional
transmitter on the plane that would send the GPS position reports to
another set of satellites.

I am somewhat surprised a GPS position was not relayed with some of
the fault messages sent, given the severity of the faults. Perhaps the
maintenance computer sending the fault messages to air france was not
hooked into the GPS system.

Dave

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

Tracking airplanes is commonplace. One way is with the Iridium LEO
satellite constellation. The equipment is not particularly expensive--
there are some operating costs (depending on how closely you want to
track). It's useful for things like survey aircraft since one doesn't
want to have crews swallowed up by the jungle without a trace.

It's not $35 though, maybe $35 per operating hour plus maybe $50K
installation on a big aircraft, and it doesn't improve safety much, if
at all.

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

snippage

Tracking airplanes is commonplace. One way is with the Iridium LEO
satellite constellation. The equipment is not particularly expensive--
there are some operating costs (depending on how closely you want to
track). It's useful for things like survey aircraft since one doesn't
want to have crews swallowed up by the jungle without a trace.

It's not $35 though, maybe $35 per operating hour plus maybe $50K
installation on a big aircraft, and it doesn't improve safety much, if
at all.

Tracking mostly serves to locate bodies and wreckage. The only safety
improvement would be if any useful info is obtained from the wreckage,
or in the rare case of survivors being located.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

snippage

Tracking airplanes is commonplace. One way is with the Iridium LEO
satellite constellation. The equipment is not particularly expensive--
there are some operating costs (depending on how closely you want to
track). It's useful for things like survey aircraft since one doesn't
want to have crews swallowed up by the jungle without a trace.

It's not $35 though, maybe $35 per operating hour plus maybe $50K
installation on a big aircraft, and it doesn't improve safety much, if
at all.

Tracking mostly serves to locate bodies and wreckage. The only safety
improvement would be if any useful info is obtained from the wreckage,
or in the rare case of survivors being located.

See the SPOT Personal Tracker. The July 2009 issue of Kitplanes has a good
review showing limitations and pricing data for this tracking and reporting
device. It is capable of producing a track of you or your aircraft produced
on your personal computer at your house, while you merrily wend your way
where ever.

Stu

Robert Swinney wrote:
Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S


GPS satellites carry a distress frequency receiver (125.5 MHz). The
number of satellites that are above the horizon to pick up the signals
allows them to usually triangulate the location of the ELT signal to
within a couple of miles.

The Air France plane did send a maintenance message to their depot,
perhaps by satellite, reporting electrical problems. The A320 ought to
have had a GPS receiver on board, but I'm guessing the automated
maintenance event system doesn't include that in the data stream.
That might just be a software change to have it always report last known
position in these maint reports.

Jon

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Robert Swinney wrote:
Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of
planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the
fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip****
was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done
with planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and
that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another
article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate.
Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track
anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers.
Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S


GPS satellites carry a distress frequency receiver (125.5 MHz). The
number of satellites that are above the horizon to pick up the signals
allows them to usually triangulate the location of the ELT signal to
within a couple of miles.

The Air France plane did send a maintenance message to their depot,
perhaps by satellite, reporting electrical problems. The A320 ought to
have had a GPS receiver on board, but I'm guessing the automated
maintenance event system doesn't include that in the data stream.

Sure it does. Nearly every fleet vehicle in the US records and reports
telemetry data on a regular basis and position, air speed and altitude are
included.

I don't know if you can still get it but a few years ago you could plug in a
flight number and have the planes exact position displayed as both text and
as a graphic along with air speed, course and altitude. Europeans and others
do the same thing for the very good reason that the property in question in
expensive as hell. I think some of the African National Airlines flying old
hardware are about the only ones left that don't know where their stuff is
and what it's doing 24/7/365.

Didn't any of you guys notice how quickly the search turned something up?
They new nearly exactly where to look.

JC

On Jun 4, 6:03*pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Robert Swinney wrote:
....
I worked on the prototypes for this at MITRE in the mid 90's:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=7131

Each plane broadcasts a packet announcing who and where it is once a
second in a collision-tolerant system like Ethernet or CAN. The rest
of the time it listens to the planes nearby and any weather or alert
data from the ground. The effect was to give each aircraft the God's
Eye View.

I don't know the current system. We used the European cell phone radio
band because it was open and components were cheap, and laptops for
the display.

jsw

On Jun 4, 6:46*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:03*pm, "John R. wrote:
"Jon Elson" wrote in message
m...
Robert Swinney wrote:

...
I worked on the prototypes for this at MITRE in the mid 90's:http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=7131

Each plane broadcasts a packet announcing who and where it is once a
second in a collision-tolerant system like Ethernet or CAN. The rest
of the time it listens to the planes nearby and any weather or alert
data from the ground. The effect was to give each aircraft the God's
Eye View.

I don't know the current system. We used the European cell phone radio
band because it was open and components were cheap, and laptops for
the display.

jsw

ADS-B out is on anything that carries people (just about), the FAA has
contracted ITT to put in the ground stations, and ADS-B in is a gleam
in the FAAs eye, always just around the corner.


Dave

writes:


ADS-B out is on anything that carries people (just about), the FAA has
contracted ITT to put in the ground stations, and ADS-B in is a gleam
in the FAAs eye, always just around the corner.

AFAIK, FAA's hope of abandoning primary RADAR in favor of any
transponder-based solution vanished on 9/11.

That does not say that ADS-B won't appear, but rather that
RADAR won't vanish.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Didn't any of you guys notice how quickly the search turned something up?
They new nearly exactly where to look.

I noticed that, the ocean is a very big place. Btw, glad you made it though your medical
event.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Didn't any of you guys notice how quickly the search turned something up?
They new nearly exactly where to look.

I noticed that, the ocean is a very big place. Btw, glad you made it
though your medical
event.

I wasn't clotting well enough Wes. I'll be heading back Sunday for a Monday
morning deal.
Chalk it up to poor communication.

JC

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:03:39 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Jon Elson" wrote in message
m...
Robert Swinney wrote:
Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of
planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the
fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip****
was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done
with planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and
that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another
article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate.
Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track
anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers.
Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S


GPS satellites carry a distress frequency receiver (125.5 MHz). The
number of satellites that are above the horizon to pick up the signals
allows them to usually triangulate the location of the ELT signal to
within a couple of miles.

The Air France plane did send a maintenance message to their depot,
perhaps by satellite, reporting electrical problems. The A320 ought to
have had a GPS receiver on board, but I'm guessing the automated
maintenance event system doesn't include that in the data stream.

Sure it does. Nearly every fleet vehicle in the US records and reports
telemetry data on a regular basis and position, air speed and altitude are
included.

I don't know if you can still get it but a few years ago you could plug in a
flight number and have the planes exact position displayed as both text and
as a graphic along with air speed, course and altitude. Europeans and others
do the same thing for the very good reason that the property in question in
expensive as hell. I think some of the African National Airlines flying old
hardware are about the only ones left that don't know where their stuff is
and what it's doing 24/7/365.

Didn't any of you guys notice how quickly the search turned something up?
They new nearly exactly where to look.


They new the flight plan route - so they had a good idea where to
look.

Also, the on-line (internet) flight tracking services all hve the same
problem experienced with the Air France flight. There is a big gap
where the plane can NOT be traced by that system.
JC

Jon Elson wrote:

GPS satellites carry a distress frequency receiver (125.5 MHz).OOps, just correcting a screw-up, the distress frequency is 123.5 MHz.

Jon

Jon Elson wrote:
Jon Elson wrote:

GPS satellites carry a distress frequency receiver (125.5 MHz).OOps,
just correcting a screw-up, the distress frequency is 123.5 MHz.

Last time I checked, the frequencies were 121.5 and 243 MHz. 121.5/243
satellite service was scheduled to be terminated last February, with
only 406 being monitored. The satellite system is called Cospas-Sarsat.


Kevin Gallimore

"Robert Swinney" wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

If we can trust what I heard a caller say on the Limbaugh show, that airplane is fully
capabile of relaying any malfunction detected to either the maker or the owner via a
satellite communication system. I'd like to know more about what the plane had to say
before it died.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Robert Swinney" wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of
planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the
fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip****
was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with
planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and
that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another
article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate.
Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track
anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. Am
I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

If we can trust what I heard a caller say on the Limbaugh show, that
airplane is fully
capabile of relaying any malfunction detected to either the maker or the
owner via a
satellite communication system. I'd like to know more about what the
plane had to say
before it died.

Quite a great deal Wes.
There was a cascade of electrical system failures.
Can't fly one of those things without electricity. They are completely fly
by wire.

It also looks like it broke up in mid air. There are two debris fields sixty
miles apart.

JC

SNIP
There was a cascade of electrical system failures.
Can't fly one of those things without electricity. They are completely fly
by wire.

It also looks like it broke up in mid air. There are two debris fields sixty
miles apart.

JC

Not that is really significant, but it was 60 kilometres (about 36
miles).

No fun, but maybe we should all wait until some decent details are
available to the public.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message
news
SNIP
There was a cascade of electrical system failures.
Can't fly one of those things without electricity. They are completely fly
by wire.

It also looks like it broke up in mid air. There are two debris fields
sixty
miles apart.

JC

Not that is really significant, but it was 60 kilometres (about 36
miles).

No fun, but maybe we should all wait until some decent details are
available to the public.

Eventually there will be a full report but Airbus and Air France have both
released summaries of the telemetry data from the flight.
"Cascading series of electrical system failures" is a direct quote.

I'm also pretty sure the flight recorders will be found. There is no reason
the US couldn't put a couple of subs on this and their passive sonar would
be an excellent tool. The Navy could use it as a practice excercise and the
subs would be relatively unafected by the storms on the surface. I don't
think you get much turbulence at 100 meters and any search will have to be
done deep enough to get the sensor array below any blocking gradient in
either temp. or salinity.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message
news
SNIP
There was a cascade of electrical system failures.
Can't fly one of those things without electricity. They are completely
fly
by wire.

It also looks like it broke up in mid air. There are two debris fields
sixty
miles apart.

JC

Not that is really significant, but it was 60 kilometres (about 36
miles).

No fun, but maybe we should all wait until some decent details are
available to the public.

Eventually there will be a full report but Airbus and Air France have both
released summaries of the telemetry data from the flight.
"Cascading series of electrical system failures" is a direct quote.

I'm also pretty sure the flight recorders will be found. There is no
reason the US couldn't put a couple of subs on this and their passive
sonar would be an excellent tool. The Navy could use it as a practice
excercise and the subs would be relatively unafected by the storms on the
surface. I don't think you get much turbulence at 100 meters and any
search will have to be done deep enough to get the sensor array below any
blocking gradient in either temp. or salinity.

JC


aaah, how deep is the ocean there? Subs do NOT go that deep - do the math.
It may be found via sonar, but retrieval can be quite another problem -
remember the glomar explorer

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message
news
SNIP
There was a cascade of electrical system failures.
Can't fly one of those things without electricity. They are completely fly
by wire.

It also looks like it broke up in mid air. There are two debris fields
sixty
miles apart.

JC

Not that is really significant, but it was 60 kilometres (about 36
miles).

No fun, but maybe we should all wait until some decent details are
available to the public.


I just recieved this from a friend in the industry that I work with on a
regular basis.

We'll never know what it was like to be aboard Air France Flight 447 as it
plunged into the Atlantic Ocean on May 31, apparently killing all 228
aboard. For now, the closest we may get is listening to the passengers on a
similar Airbus 330 jet whose flight computer put it into an uncommanded dive
over northwestern Australia last October.



a.. What Might Have Made the Air France Flight Disappear Over the
Atlantic?
Qantas Flight 72 had been airborne for three hours, flying uneventfully on
autopilot from Singapore to Perth, Australia. But as the in-flight dinner
service wrapped up, the aircraft's flight-control computer went crazy. The
plane abruptly entered a smooth 650-ft. dive (which the crew sensed was not
being caused by turbulence) that sent dozens of people smashing into the
airplane's luggage bins and ceiling. More than 100 of the 300 people on
board were hurt, with broken bones, neck and spinal injuries, and severe
lacerations splattering blood throughout the cabin.

"It was horrendous, absolutely gruesome, terrible," passenger Jim Ford told
Australian radio. "The worst experience of my life." Passenger Nigel Court
said he was terrified to watch people not wearing seat belts - including his
wife - fly upward. "She crashed headfirst into the roof above us," he told a
reporter. "People were screaming," said Henry Bishop of Oxford, England. A
Sri Lankan couple said they were thrown to the ceiling when their seat belts
failed. "We saw our own deaths," said Sam Samaratunga, who was traveling
with his wife Rani to their son's wedding. "We decided to die together and
embraced each other."

After seemingly an eternity - in reality, the nosedive lasted 20 very long
seconds - the flight crew wrested control of the plane from its wayward
computer and made an emergency landing at a remote military and mining
airstrip 650 miles short of Perth.

Following an investigation of the A330's uncommanded dive, Australian
aviation officials, assisted by U.S. and French authorities, blamed a pair
of simultaneous failures for the near disaster. The plane has three air data
inertial reference units (ADIRUs), which are designed to help the plane's
flight-control computer fly the plane safely. The system is intended to
eliminate the possibility of electronic error: The flight computer, which is
always monitoring the trio, can disregard one ADIRU if it begins relaying
information that conflicts with the other two.

But that's not what happened when one of them went awry on Oct. 7 and began
sending erroneous data spikes on the plane's angle of attack (AOA) - the
angle between its wings and the air flowing over them - to the
flight-control computer. "For some reason, the damn computer disregarded the
healthy channels," says Hans Weber, an aviation expert who heads Tecop
International, an aviation-consulting firm in San Diego. "Instead, it acted
upon the information from the rogue channel." The computer, responding to
the faulty data, put the plane into a dive.

In its preliminary investigative report, released on March 6, the Australian
Transport Safety Bureau said Airbus had initially said it didn't know of any
other similar events. But when the same thing happened again, involving a
different aircraft, on Dec. 27, Airbus combed its computerized flight files
and found data fingerprints suggesting similar ADIRU problems had occurred
on a total of four flights. One of the earlier instances, in fact, included
a September 2006 event on the same plane that entered the uncommanded dive
in October (the other three flights had continued safely on). The same
VCR-sized ADIRU was to blame in both those cases, although it had supposedly
undergone a needed realignment following the 2006 event. All three planes
carried the same brand and model of ADIRU, as do 397 of the 900 330s and
340s in the Airbus fleet.

It is not yet known whether Air France 447, an A330, carried the troublesome
variety of ADIRU. But if it did, and if the Air France plane plummeted into
an uncommanded dive while traveling through a downdraft generated by
storms - a common occurrence over the region of the Atlantic Ocean where the
plane went down - it could have been doomed as it entered a steep dive and
likely broke up.

Aviation authorities around the world have ordered inspections and
procedures to try to eliminate the problem. "In these fly-by-wire systems,
one never really knows if one has checked out all possible combinations of
events to make sure that the computer properly reacts," Weber says of modern
flight control. Fly-by-wire systems use computers and wires instead of
mechanics and hydraulics to control a plane's flight. Electronic systems are
more reliable than mechanical processes but are prone to software errors
that can't always be anticipated. "There could be some other sequence of
events that could cause another bad software reaction," says Weber.

The Australians' March report concluded that the October dive was due to a
series of events that, when combined, was "close to the worst possible
scenario that could arise from the design limitation in the AOA processing
algorithm." Airbus also told investigators that this particular mathematical
formula for flying the plane is found only on its A330 and A340 models.
"Different algorithms were in use on other Airbus types, which were reported
to be more robust to AOA spikes," the report said. "The manufacturer advised
that AOA spikes matching the above scenario would not have caused a
pitch-down event on Airbus aircraft other than an A330 or A340."

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 16:48:02 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Robert Swinney" wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of
planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the
fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip****
was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with
planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and
that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another
article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate.
Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track
anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. Am
I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

If we can trust what I heard a caller say on the Limbaugh show, that
airplane is fully
capabile of relaying any malfunction detected to either the maker or the
owner via a
satellite communication system. I'd like to know more about what the
plane had to say
before it died.

Quite a great deal Wes.
There was a cascade of electrical system failures.
Can't fly one of those things without electricity. They are completely fly
by wire.

It also looks like it broke up in mid air. There are two debris fields sixty
miles apart.

JC

Best bet to date is combination of violent updraft and lightning
strike from flying through a violent thunderstorm cell.

The plane had automatic call home for service calls. If it had a GPS, then a
simple stamp on the report tells where it was at the time.
Seems simple enough.

Martin

Robert Swinney wrote:
Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right). Some dip**** was quoted that he can be
tracked on his Blackberry and doesn't understand why it can't be done with planes. Testimony to
what the public is led to believe by TV and movies.

The gist of the article was that we already have a great GPS network and that it will be only a
small step ( $35 bill ) to apply it to planes. This was yet another article that holds technology
up to god-like status, with not a hint of how things really operate. Nowhere in it was there
mention of the fact that GPS is a one-way venue and Big Bro can't track anything without
transceivers, whether it be GPS or conventional radar-based squawkers. Am I wrong about this ???

B ( not totally brainwashed TV yet ) S

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right).

standard radar is line of sight.
we australians have an over the horizon radar which is pretty
remarkable.
I think our guys lead the world with the technology.

Stealth Pilot

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of
planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the
fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right).

standard radar is line of sight.
we australians have an over the horizon radar which is pretty
remarkable.
I think our guys lead the world with the technology.

Stealth Pilot


Pave Paws has been around a long time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS

depending on frequency, you can get ducting, particularly when it is warm an
humid
theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/234/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_ducting
ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/810/1796/00047637.pdf?arnumber=47637

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:37:44 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of
planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the
fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right).

standard radar is line of sight.
we australians have an over the horizon radar which is pretty
remarkable.
I think our guys lead the world with the technology.

Stealth Pilot


Pave Paws has been around a long time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS

depending on frequency, you can get ducting, particularly when it is warm an
humid
theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/234/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_ducting
ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/810/1796/00047637.pdf?arnumber=47637


Bill I can assure you that the australian system isnt Pave Paws or
anything like it.
do a google search on Jindalee and JORN

Stealth Pilot

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:23:15 GMT, the infamous Stealth Pilot
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:37:44 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:
Pave Paws has been around a long time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS

depending on frequency, you can get ducting, particularly when it is warm an
humid
theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/234/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_ducting
ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/810/1796/00047637.pdf?arnumber=47637


Bill I can assure you that the australian system isnt Pave Paws or
anything like it.
do a google search on Jindalee and JORN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_the_horizon_radar has a good
overview. Your Jindalee system seems to be the newest innovation.

---
So far Mr. Obama has used his personally exciting presidency for initiatives
that are spending public money on a scale not seen since ancient Egypt.
-- Daniel Henninger
WSJ Online, 4 June 2009
"Obama's America: Too Fat to Fail
The age of the induced industrial coma."

Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right).

standard radar is line of sight.
we australians have an over the horizon radar which is pretty
remarkable.
I think our guys lead the world with the technology.


the first RADAR systems used in W.W.II was over the horizon, but it
wasn't intended to be. Quite a few 'Ghost fleets' were spotted, and
according to their displays, it should have been plainly visible, when
in fact they were well outside the design range. Then reports came in
of enemy ships being spotted at exactly one or two times the displayed
distance. They finally determined it was due to the low frequency that
the early RADAR systems used.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:14:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right).

standard radar is line of sight.
we australians have an over the horizon radar which is pretty
remarkable.
I think our guys lead the world with the technology.


the first RADAR systems used in W.W.II was over the horizon, but it
wasn't intended to be. Quite a few 'Ghost fleets' were spotted, and
according to their displays, it should have been plainly visible, when
in fact they were well outside the design range. Then reports came in
of enemy ships being spotted at exactly one or two times the displayed
distance. They finally determined it was due to the low frequency that
the early RADAR systems used.

the frequency may have been right for the conditions but the cause was
ionospheric reflection.

Stealth Pilot

On Jun 6, 4:25*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:14:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

* the first RADAR systems used in W.W.II was over the horizon, but it
wasn't intended to be. *Quite a few 'Ghost fleets' were spotted, and
according to their displays, it should have been plainly visible, when
in fact they were well outside the design range. *Then reports came in
of enemy ships being spotted at exactly one or two times the displayed
distance. *They finally determined it was due to the low frequency that
the early RADAR systems used.

the frequency may have been right for the conditions but the cause was
ionospheric reflection.

Stealth Pilot-

Some were too short for skip. Early in WW2 there was a serious
invasion scare in SoCal when a radar picked up the seagulls over a
garbage scow about 60 miles out.

What's Carlos Kopp doing now? I haven't heard from him in quite a
while.

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Jun 6, 4:25 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:14:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

the first RADAR systems used in W.W.II was over the horizon, but it
wasn't intended to be. Quite a few 'Ghost fleets' were spotted, and
according to their displays, it should have been plainly visible, when
in fact they were well outside the design range. Then reports came in
of enemy ships being spotted at exactly one or two times the displayed
distance. They finally determined it was due to the low frequency that
the early RADAR systems used.

the frequency may have been right for the conditions but the cause was
ionospheric reflection.

Stealth Pilot-

Some were too short for skip. Early in WW2 there was a serious
invasion scare in SoCal when a radar picked up the seagulls over a
garbage scow about 60 miles out.

What's Carlos Kopp doing now? I haven't heard from him in quite a
while.

jsw

While in development, I was operating an X band monopulse radar with a long
focal length (120") TV camera mounted on the side. I picked up a target of
opportunity and locked on. In my TV screen was a mountain. The cross hairs
were moving about so I just left it locked on and watched. Suddently out
from behind the mountain appeared a 747 with the shuttle on board. I had
been skin tracking that large target in back of a mountain.
There was a US based VLF OverThe Horizon radar project back in the early
90s that was able to track and assist an airliner in trouble out over the
Atlantic. It used a fairly large set of arrays that occupied a bit of real
estate. This project may have been a funding fatality.

In article ,
Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:14:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location of
planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone the
fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right).

standard radar is line of sight.
we australians have an over the horizon radar which is pretty
remarkable.
I think our guys lead the world with the technology.


the first RADAR systems used in W.W.II was over the horizon, but it
wasn't intended to be. Quite a few 'Ghost fleets' were spotted, and
according to their displays, it should have been plainly visible, when
in fact they were well outside the design range. Then reports came in
of enemy ships being spotted at exactly one or two times the displayed
distance. They finally determined it was due to the low frequency that
the early RADAR systems used.

the frequency may have been right for the conditions but the cause was
ionospheric reflection.

It's not the frequency that causes such ghosts, it's the pulse
repetition frequency that matters.

A pulse radar periodically transmits pulses, listens for echoes between
the transmits, and assumes that received echoes came from the
immediately preceding transmit. Which isn't necessarily true. A large
reflector can have a loud-enough echo from several transmit pulses ago,
making it look like there is a nearby target.

This is called a "second time around" echo (even if its really third
time, et al).

The standard solution is to vary the period between transmit pulses.
Real echoes will not change their apparent range, while N-time-around
echoes will move in predictable ways.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:14:07 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:22:27 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Excite today carried a piece re. the S. American crash and location
of
planes over the ocean. It
went on to say that radar can't see beyond about 200 miles (let alone
the
fact that bending radar
coverage beyond LOS is pretty remarkable in its own right).

standard radar is line of sight.
we australians have an over the horizon radar which is pretty
remarkable.
I think our guys lead the world with the technology.


the first RADAR systems used in W.W.II was over the horizon, but it
wasn't intended to be. Quite a few 'Ghost fleets' were spotted, and
according to their displays, it should have been plainly visible, when
in fact they were well outside the design range. Then reports came in
of enemy ships being spotted at exactly one or two times the displayed
distance. They finally determined it was due to the low frequency that
the early RADAR systems used.

the frequency may have been right for the conditions but the cause was
ionospheric reflection.

It's not the frequency that causes such ghosts, it's the pulse
repetition frequency that matters.

A pulse radar periodically transmits pulses, listens for echoes between
the transmits, and assumes that received echoes came from the
immediately preceding transmit. Which isn't necessarily true. A large
reflector can have a loud-enough echo from several transmit pulses ago,
making it look like there is a nearby target.

This is called a "second time around" echo (even if its really third
time, et al).

The standard solution is to vary the period between transmit pulses.
Real echoes will not change their apparent range, while N-time-around
echoes will move in predictable ways.

Joe Gwinn

Joe you sound like a Radar Rat. The Nth time around trackers are used in
deep space tracking all the time. Have you been associated with them?
Stu (Radar Rat from NWC and Kwaj)

On Jun 6, 4:00*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

A pulse radar periodically transmits pulses, listens for echoes between
the transmits, and assumes that received echoes came from the
immediately preceding transmit. *Which isn't necessarily true. *A large
reflector can have a loud-enough echo from several transmit pulses ago,
making it look like there is a nearby target. *

This is called a "second time around" echo (even if its really third
time, et al).

The standard solution is to vary the period between transmit pulses. *
Real echoes will not change their apparent range, while N-time-around
echoes will move in predictable ways.

Joe Gwinn

Another solution is to not send a pulse, and when you do not get a
pulse back, you know how long it took for the pulse to not go out and
return. This was used on the Verlort radar to track targets at 1000
miles or so.

Dan