Plane 'sent 24 error messages'

  Quickbeam 11:44 06 Jun 09

From click here

As a matter of possibility, would it in this day of satellite communications, be possible for a continuous stream of flight data to be sent live to a central flight date centre rendering the black box obsolete?

A car's sat-nav is continually checking it's real position to report visually on a screen. Taxi systems with that are GPS enabled are in regular contact with the base station to enable efficient despatching. So isn't it a simple case of having a continuous satellite link to a base.

  Forum Editor 11:54 06 Jun 09

Car sat nav systems don't send, they only receive. The GP Staellites send out data pulses which are received by the onboard system and used to calculate the position of the receiver - the satnav uses a sophisticated form of triangulation to calculate where the vehicle is, relative to the satellites.

It works with an almost infinite number of vehicles because they're all receiving - the satellite doesn't have to cope with two-way traffic.

If aircraft constantly transmitted data-bursts to a satellite the data would have to be sent down to a ground station, and with aircraft moving at high speeds there would be more than one ground station involved - there might be dozens. The data would then have to be collated into a single file and stored somewhere until/unless needed. The potential for data corruption and loss is considerable. Flight recorders and cockpit voice recorders do the job, provided they can be recovered, and in all but a very few cases they can.

  OTT_Buzzard 11:55 06 Jun 09

I suspect the infra structure just doesn't exist to either transmit, process or store the shear volume of information that your idea would generate.

If you take all of the commercial aircraft flying at any one time, multiply it by the number of data streams that the aircraft generates, then multiply it again by the frequency at which they are guess is that you'd be looking at billions of data sets which would need to be stored every single second of the day.

Then there's a problem of different formats for the data from different plane manufacturers and getting the data to a server where it can be stored.

It's not impossible, just very very complex!

  Quickbeam 12:00 06 Jun 09

Just a thought.

  tein 14:34 06 Jun 09

Quickbeam GREAT idea thou!! take my hat off!!

  tein 14:53 06 Jun 09

You know there's something that just don't smell right with ALL this!?

IF a plane is travelling at 500MPH like that A330 was doing (BBC Reported) & it hit the water full of fuel & full of passengers & a few tons of luggage, that is one SERIOUSLY heavy object to crash into the sea at a very high speed!

I can't stop thinking that the plane would of suffered some kind of breakup Or fatigue making the wings tear off or the fuselage break up? I also find it hard that a plane of that size can drop to depths of maybe thousands if not tens of thousands of feet with INCREADBLE pressure's surrounding it & it doesn't implode.?

That's literally tons of pressure per square inch.? we need submarines to go to that depth & be safe so why is there no kind of debris I find it VERY hard to believe that it hit the water at the speed it was & weighing what it did without something coming away.? & ok if it didn't break up in any form on impact then if its deep enough that surely would cause more fatigue on a already battered plane fuselage making it weaker?

So why hasn't it imploded in some form.? I don't like the smell of this I don't think we are been told the whole truth here I think there is much more than we know!
Maximum takeoff weight: 230 Tons (The plane was almost full)
Cruising Speed: 541MPH At 35.000Ft
230 Tons travelling at 540Mph hitting the water which is known to be like hitting concrete at that speed & height
& yet no Debris.?

click here

  Colin 15:03 06 Jun 09

"I don't like the smell of this I don't think we are been told the whole truth here I think there is much more than we know!" That's because people want instant answers to everything these days, which is probably why the debris was misidentified. A layman’s first question always seem to start with “Surely they should be able to etc, etc”. In time, what happened will become known - it’s only a matter of time but I’m sure that the conspiracy theorists will be adding their two penny’s worth!

  kieronkirk 15:05 06 Jun 09

for the latest thoughts on this incident try:

click here


  tein 15:06 06 Jun 09

Colin thats true!

I know the "conspiracy theorists" will be out in true form soon but i aint built that way! it just dont add up thou.??

  OTT_Buzzard 15:20 06 Jun 09

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

IF the aircraft hit the water in one piece, it sure as hell would have broken up! This could have spread debis over several miles, or in a relatively small area, depending on the angle of impact.

The other case scenario is that the aricraft broke up in mid air. The spread of debris for this could be absolutely enourmous.

As someone else said in another link, it really is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

In either case, the pressure that the plane parts are under when they fnally hit the bottom of the ocean s inconsequential, aparet from where the flight recorders are concerned. Even then, the depths that could be in question could well be beyond their structural capability.

Incidentaly, I don't believe that military submarines can go as deep as you've implied. Small dedicated subs do seem to be able to (click here)

  OTT_Buzzard 15:33 06 Jun 09

I should really add to my last post that the only reason something can implode under water is if it is unable to equalise its pressure to its surroundings. In the case of a 'broken' off component it will make no difference since there will be no air trapped in it. The chances of the main fuselage being in tact after impact are as close to zero as you can get, therefore there will also be no air trapped.

Also, there aren't that many parts of an aircraft that can float, so there's not much to be looking for.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 benchmarks: Antutu, Geekbench 4, GFXBench and PCMark results

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

This stop-frame animation tells a moving story of domestic violence for Refuge

New iPad 2017 preview: Apple's affordable but underspecced new iPad may appeal to the education…