New plane tracking to be tested after Malaysia Airlines MH370 mystery

[webfact]

New plane tracking to be tested after Malaysia jet mystery
By KRISTEN GELINEAU

SYDNEY (AP) — Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia will lead a trial of an enhanced method of tracking aircraft over remote oceans to allow planes to be more easily found should they vanish like Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Australia's transport minister said Sunday.

The announcement comes one week ahead of the anniversary of the disappearance of Flight 370, which vanished last year during a flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing with 239 people on board. No trace of the plane has been found.

Airservices Australia, a government-owned agency that manages the country's airspace, will work with its Malaysian and Indonesian counterparts to test the new method, which would enable planes to be tracked every 15 minutes, rather than the previous rate of 30 to 40 minutes, Australian Transport Minister Warren Truss said. The tracking would increase to 5 minutes or less if there is a deviation in the plane's movements.

The trial is expected to use satellite-based positioning technology already on board 90 percent of long-haul aircraft that transmits the plane's current position and its next two planned positions, said Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston, who helped lead the search for Flight 370.

The trial will boost the frequency with which planes automatically report their position, allowing air traffic controllers to better track them, Houston said.

"This is not a silver bullet," he told reporters in the nation's capital, Canberra. "But it is an important step in delivering immediate improvements to the way we currently track aircraft while more comprehensive solutions are developed."

There is no requirement for real-time tracking of commercial aircraft and ever since Flight 370 disappeared, air safety regulators and airlines have been trying to agree on how extensively planes should be tracked. The Boeing 777 veered sharply off-course and vanished from radar shortly into its flight on March 8.

An international team of experts that analyzed a series of hourly transmissions between the plane and a satellite later determined that the plane traveled for another seven hours before crashing somewhere within a remote 60,000-square-kilometer (23,000-square-mile) patch of the Indian Ocean. An extensive, monthslong search of that area is ongoing, but nothing has yet been found.

Houston warned that new method being trialed would not necessarily have allowed air traffic controllers to monitor Flight 370 — whose transponder and other tracking equipment shut down during the flight — to the point where it crashed.

"I think we've got to be very, very careful because you can turn this system off," he said. "What would have happened while the system is operating, we'd know exactly where the aircraft was. If somebody had turned the system off, we're in the same set of circumstances as we've experienced on the latter part of the flight of MH370."
___

Associated Press writer Rod McGuirk in Canberra, Australia, contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-02

[NeverSure]

That was a big issue. The pilots turned the transponder off for unknown reasons. At the least a new system should be out of reach of the pilots in case of nefarious intent. The transponder now on planes looks a bit like a radio and can be turned off as easily.

[tigermonkey]

What a waste of time and effort, all in the interests of appearing to get something done. The 'new' system uses ADS-C which has been in use since the 1980's. The only change is the frequency which is changing from 30/40 minutes to 15 minutes, with a further reduction to 5 minutes if any anomaly is noticed in earlier transmissions. The system is still, of course, capable of being turned off from the flight deck.

What would the results have been if MH370 had been using this system ? We would probably have more extensively searched the South China Sea, before moving on to the present activity.

[tigermonkey]

That was a big issue. The pilots turned the transponder off for unknown reasons. At the least a new system should be out of reach of the pilots in case of nefarious intent. The transponder now on planes looks a bit like a radio and can be turned off as easily.

Actually we have no idea who turned off the transponder, or even if it shut down independently. Unfortunately, the 'new system' will have the same vulnerability, and there will be no plan to change this, while the system design presents the very real risk of in-flight fire. There is no new thinking here whatever.

[Grouse]

Half assed idea.

Inmarsat could sort it completely at very modest cost

Just someone playing politics

[oneday]

That was a big issue. The pilots turned the transponder off for unknown reasons. At the least a new system should be out of reach of the pilots in case of nefarious intent. The transponder now on planes looks a bit like a radio and can be turned off as easily.

Seems fairly easy to set something up.

1. Place the unit in the plane in such a way that the pilots have NO access to it, cannot cut wire, cannot damage it by hitting it, etc.

2. Only allow it to be turned off remotely, if there is some reason it should need to be shut off.

3. Two or three command personnel on the ground must provide their own individualized passwords to affect a shut-down. It should not be under the control of one person.

It's a thought.

[smedly]

They need to remove the option to turn them off

[natway09]

Red Herring?

[Grouse]

Captain must retain overall command and control I including shutting down electrical circuits.

There are ways to square this particular circle

[Grouse]

Captain must retain overall command and control I including shutting down electrical circuits.

There are ways to square this particular circle

[NeverSure]

Captain must retain overall command and control I including shutting down electrical circuits.

There are ways to square this particular circle

Does he have control of the "black boxes"?

[HeinzNong]

I can't believe the Australian Government is still wasting Tax payers money finding a plane that was obviously hijacked remotely. Some real hard questions should be directed to the US Government/NSA. This is obviously not appropriate for a lap dog.

[tigermonkey]

That was a big issue. The pilots turned the transponder off for unknown reasons. At the least a new system should be out of reach of the pilots in case of nefarious intent. The transponder now on planes looks a bit like a radio and can be turned off as easily.

Seems fairly easy to set something up.

1. Place the unit in the plane in such a way that the pilots have NO access to it, cannot cut wire, cannot damage it by hitting it, etc.

2. Only allow it to be turned off remotely, if there is some reason it should need to be shut off.

3. Two or three command personnel on the ground must provide their own individualized passwords to affect a shut-down. It should not be under the control of one person.

It's a thought.

Ok, so your're at FL340 and suddenly a fire breaks out, which is traced to a short in the ADS-C equipment circuitry. The pilot notifies "ground" by VHS that ADS-C is causing a fire. Meanwhile. the short/fire causes ADS-C to cease functioning, followed rapidly by ADS-B, VHS and VHS. The aircraft now has no communications and is 'invisible', but the short is now causing more fire. What is your "fairly easy" solution to this problem ?

[Grouse]

Captain must retain overall command and control I including shutting down electrical circuits.

There are ways to square this particular circle

Does he have control of the "black boxes"?

Good question!

No doubt they are self contained but have external power supply.

I shall find out how that circuit can be isolated on A320 at least......

[tigermonkey]

Captain must retain overall command and control I including shutting down electrical circuits.

There are ways to square this particular circle

Does he have control of the "black boxes"?

Yes, circuitry for FDR and CVR can be turned off in the event of an emergency.

[smedly]

That was a big issue. The pilots turned the transponder off for unknown reasons. At the least a new system should be out of reach of the pilots in case of nefarious intent. The transponder now on planes looks a bit like a radio and can be turned off as easily.

Seems fairly easy to set something up.

1. Place the unit in the plane in such a way that the pilots have NO access to it, cannot cut wire, cannot damage it by hitting it, etc.

2. Only allow it to be turned off remotely, if there is some reason it should need to be shut off.

3. Two or three command personnel on the ground must provide their own individualized passwords to affect a shut-down. It should not be under the control of one person.

It's a thought.

Ok, so your're at FL340 and suddenly a fire breaks out, which is traced to a short in the ADS-C equipment circuitry. The pilot notifies "ground" by VHS that ADS-C is causing a fire. Meanwhile. the short/fire causes ADS-C to cease functioning, followed rapidly by ADS-B, VHS and VHS. The aircraft now has no communications and is 'invisible', but the short is now causing more fire. What is your "fairly easy" solution to this problem ?

If a fire breaks out in the ADS-C equipment then it has been very poorly designed - perhaps a historical look at this equipment may reveal that no such incident has ever occurred or is likely to ever occur or may even be deemed impossible - there are numerous systems on a modern plane that simply cannot be disabled or turned off as they are needed to control and fly the aircraft

[tigermonkey]

That was a big issue. The pilots turned the transponder off for unknown reasons. At the least a new system should be out of reach of the pilots in case of nefarious intent. The transponder now on planes looks a bit like a radio and can be turned off as easily.

Seems fairly easy to set something up.

1. Place the unit in the plane in such a way that the pilots have NO access to it, cannot cut wire, cannot damage it by hitting it, etc.

2. Only allow it to be turned off remotely, if there is some reason it should need to be shut off.

3. Two or three command personnel on the ground must provide their own individualized passwords to affect a shut-down. It should not be under the control of one person.

It's a thought.

Ok, so your're at FL340 and suddenly a fire breaks out, which is traced to a short in the ADS-C equipment circuitry. The pilot notifies "ground" by VHS that ADS-C is causing a fire. Meanwhile. the short/fire causes ADS-C to cease functioning, followed rapidly by ADS-B, VHS and VHS. The aircraft now has no communications and is 'invisible', but the short is now causing more fire. What is your "fairly easy" solution to this problem ?

If a fire breaks out in the ADS-C equipment then it has been very poorly designed - perhaps a historical look at this equipment may reveal that no such incident has ever occurred or is likely to ever occur or may even be deemed impossible - there are numerous systems on a modern plane that simply cannot be disabled or turned off as they are needed to control and fly the aircraft

Never say never. Poor design - poor maintenance - unforeseen circumstances. I am intrigued by your "numerous systems on a modern plane that simply cannot be disabled or turned off" . I can not think of what these "numerous systems" might be. Legitimate question from an over the hill pilot ! Can you name some please.

...and by the way, I said ADS-C equipment circuitry, not the equipment itself. Many failures occur in the supply circuitry and not the actual equipment.

Edited March 2, 2015 by tigermonkey

[smedly]

Seems fairly easy to set something up.

1. Place the unit in the plane in such a way that the pilots have NO access to it, cannot cut wire, cannot damage it by hitting it, etc.

2. Only allow it to be turned off remotely, if there is some reason it should need to be shut off.

3. Two or three command personnel on the ground must provide their own individualized passwords to affect a shut-down. It should not be under the control of one person.

It's a thought.

Ok, so your're at FL340 and suddenly a fire breaks out, which is traced to a short in the ADS-C equipment circuitry. The pilot notifies "ground" by VHS that ADS-C is causing a fire. Meanwhile. the short/fire causes ADS-C to cease functioning, followed rapidly by ADS-B, VHS and VHS. The aircraft now has no communications and is 'invisible', but the short is now causing more fire. What is your "fairly easy" solution to this problem ?

If a fire breaks out in the ADS-C equipment then it has been very poorly designed - perhaps a historical look at this equipment may reveal that no such incident has ever occurred or is likely to ever occur or may even be deemed impossible - there are numerous systems on a modern plane that simply cannot be disabled or turned off as they are needed to control and fly the aircraft

Never say never. Poor design - poor maintenance - unforeseen circumstances. I am intrigued by your "numerous systems on a modern plane that simply cannot be disabled or turned off" . I can not think of what these "numerous systems" might be. Legitimate question from an over the hill pilot ! Can you name some please.

...and by the way, I said ADS-C equipment circuitry, not the equipment itself. Many failures occur in the supply circuitry and not the actual equipment.

If you know anything about electronics and electricity then you would not be asking - as it happens I do

As for aircraft - there are various motors pumps air conditioning servos safety systems environmental control hi power devices on aircraft that are needed to fly the thing and support the crew and passengers and that's before even getting into the electronic systems that control them and monitor them for excess current - there are many high risk items such as Hi current devices - batteries - fuel/oxygen systems - cooking facilities that have a much higher chance of fire than a gps system that is virtually zero if not zero risk - it's all about a devices power profile and its zero ability to combust including where it gets it's power source from, one thing is for sure - there is no point in improving the tracking system on an aircraft if it can just be switched off by the pilot or a hijacker with the flick of a switch

[pattayasnowman]

This system has been available to Air Carriers for years - its called ACARS - (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System)

It was installed on MH370 but was only functioning when within Radio contact. It was not "Switched off"

It is also designed to function with an satellite uplink . The satellite service is provided by Inmarsat. However Inmarsat charges for this services. Malaysian Airlines had decided to save on this service and did not sign up with Inmarsat.

Had they done so the ACARS would have reported the planes position and other essential data every 5 mins as with the case of the crash of AF447 flight from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Paris, France, which crashed on 1 June 2009.

However even knowing AF447 last position to within 5 mins of crashing - it still took 2 years to locate the wreckage at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

The present search area for MH370 is some 10 times larger then in the case of AF447.

As such the likelyhood of finding the crash site and wreckage is slim at best.

[tigermonkey]

Ok, so your're at FL340 and suddenly a fire breaks out, which is traced to a short in the ADS-C equipment circuitry. The pilot notifies "ground" by VHS that ADS-C is causing a fire. Meanwhile. the short/fire causes ADS-C to cease functioning, followed rapidly by ADS-B, VHS and VHS. The aircraft now has no communications and is 'invisible', but the short is now causing more fire. What is your "fairly easy" solution to this problem ?

If a fire breaks out in the ADS-C equipment then it has been very poorly designed - perhaps a historical look at this equipment may reveal that no such incident has ever occurred or is likely to ever occur or may even be deemed impossible - there are numerous systems on a modern plane that simply cannot be disabled or turned off as they are needed to control and fly the aircraft

Never say never. Poor design - poor maintenance - unforeseen circumstances. I am intrigued by your "numerous systems on a modern plane that simply cannot be disabled or turned off" . I can not think of what these "numerous systems" might be. Legitimate question from an over the hill pilot ! Can you name some please.

...and by the way, I said ADS-C equipment circuitry, not the equipment itself. Many failures occur in the supply circuitry and not the actual equipment.

If you know anything about electronics and electricity then you would not be asking - as it happens I do

As for aircraft - there are various motors pumps air conditioning servos safety systems environmental control hi power devices on aircraft that are needed to fly the thing and support the crew and passengers and that's before even getting into the electronic systems that control them and monitor them for excess current - there are many high risk items such as Hi current devices - batteries - fuel/oxygen systems - cooking facilities that have a much higher chance of fire than a gps system that is virtually zero if not zero risk - it's all about a devices power profile and its zero ability to combust including where it gets it's power source from, one thing is for sure - there is no point in improving the tracking system on an aircraft if it can just be switched off by the pilot or a hijacker with the flick of a switch

Ah, so you are a whiz at electronics and electricity. I bow to your superior knowledge of these things on the ground. However, the fact that all of these systems exist on modern aircraft, does not make them essential in order to "control and fly the aircraft ". "Cooking facilities" for example have little to do with aircraft control. Almost all systems on modern aircraft can either be switched off or isolated by pulling the breaker for that circuit. That's the way that it is for safety reasons. Is it overkill ? Sure it is, but then a passenger aircraft can't just pull into the local electronics/electric service centre when they have a problem !

I don't make these decisions about aircraft design. Hundreds of genuinely expert people make these decisions for the safety of the passengers and crew. They consider every contingency. no matter how small.

My point was about ground control of circuitry, and I have not changed that view. I do completely agree about on-board control of a tracking system. If the system can be shut down by pilots or others, it negates the entire purpose of the system. By the way GPS can be jammed -- units to do this can be bought on-line.

I have no answer to this tracking dilemma. However, I do know that if MH370 had been tracked to itsdestination, we would still know little more than its location. We would likely still not know what happend. So why all the fuss ?

[Rancid]

I can't believe the Australian Government is still wasting Tax payers money finding a plane that was obviously hijacked remotely. Some real hard questions should be directed to the US Government/NSA. This is obviously not appropriate for a lap dog.

It was just a photo op for that idiot Abbott, don't necessarily believe the US was involved in that, however they probably know more than they are letting on.

Since PM Holt 'disappeared' and PM Whitlam was ousted in a monarchist coup the US has called the shots in Australia.

Foreign blogs indeed correctly, and embarrassing, refer to Aussies as US lap dogs, also Canadians & Pomms. We are no longer the good guys we like to kid ourselves we are.

[smedly]

If you know anything about electronics and electricity then you would not be asking - as it happens I do

As for aircraft - there are various motors pumps air conditioning servos safety systems environmental control hi power devices on aircraft that are needed to fly the thing and support the crew and passengers and that's before even getting into the electronic systems that control them and monitor them for excess current - there are many high risk items such as Hi current devices - batteries - fuel/oxygen systems - cooking facilities that have a much higher chance of fire than a gps system that is virtually zero if not zero risk - it's all about a devices power profile and its zero ability to combust including where it gets it's power source from, one thing is for sure - there is no point in improving the tracking system on an aircraft if it can just be switched off by the pilot or a hijacker with the flick of a switch

Ah, so you are a whiz at electronics and electricity. I bow to your superior knowledge of these things on the ground. However, the fact that all of these systems exist on modern aircraft, does not make them essential in order to "control and fly the aircraft ". "Cooking facilities" for example have little to do with aircraft control. Almost all systems on modern aircraft can either be switched off or isolated by pulling the breaker for that circuit. That's the way that it is for safety reasons. Is it overkill ? Sure it is, but then a passenger aircraft can't just pull into the local electronics/electric service centre when they have a problem !

I don't make these decisions about aircraft design. Hundreds of genuinely expert people make these decisions for the safety of the passengers and crew. They consider every contingency. no matter how small.

My point was about ground control of circuitry, and I have not changed that view. I do completely agree about on-board control of a tracking system. If the system can be shut down by pilots or others, it negates the entire purpose of the system. By the way GPS can be jammed -- units to do this can be bought on-line.

I have no answer to this tracking dilemma. However, I do know that if MH370 had been tracked to itsdestination, we would still know little more than its location. We would likely still not know what happend. So why all the fuss ?

seriously why all the fuss ?

If your children parents grandchildren wife had been on that plane yeh sure why all the fuss - maybe they were abducted by aliens .....right ?

google can track me into my bathroom when I take a dump - yet an aircraft can simply disappear without a trace, what we do know is that the transponder was manually switched off - my own opinion is that one of the pilots lost the plot and the aircraft was driven into the sea somewhere - a mental profile of the men in the cockpit would reveal what really happened and why, I suspect that is something that is being covered up

My post above was simply highlighting all the systems on an aircraft that pose a fire hazard or a risk - gps is not one of them

and yes I am an engineer of electronics and electrical systems - it makes no difference whether on the ground or in orbit - the principals remain the same

[tigermonkey]

Ah, so you are a whiz at electronics and electricity. I bow to your superior knowledge of these things on the ground. However, the fact that all of these systems exist on modern aircraft, does not make them essential in order to "control and fly the aircraft ". "Cooking facilities" for example have little to do with aircraft control. Almost all systems on modern aircraft can either be switched off or isolated by pulling the breaker for that circuit. That's the way that it is for safety reasons. Is it overkill ? Sure it is, but then a passenger aircraft can't just pull into the local electronics/electric service centre when they have a problem !

I don't make these decisions about aircraft design. Hundreds of genuinely expert people make these decisions for the safety of the passengers and crew. They consider every contingency. no matter how small.

My point was about ground control of circuitry, and I have not changed that view. I do completely agree about on-board control of a tracking system. If the system can be shut down by pilots or others, it negates the entire purpose of the system. By the way GPS can be jammed -- units to do this can be bought on-line.

I have no answer to this tracking dilemma. However, I do know that if MH370 had been tracked to itsdestination, we would still know little more than its location. We would likely still not know what happend. So why all the fuss ?

seriously why all the fuss ?

If your children parents grandchildren wife had been on that plane yeh sure why all the fuss - maybe they were abducted by aliens .....right ?

google can track me into my bathroom when I take a dump - yet an aircraft can simply disappear without a trace, what we do know is that the transponder was manually switched off - my own opinion is that one of the pilots lost the plot and the aircraft was driven into the sea somewhere - a mental profile of the men in the cockpit would reveal what really happened and why, I suspect that is something that is being covered up

My post above was simply highlighting all the systems on an aircraft that pose a fire hazard or a risk - gps is not one of them

and yes I am an engineer of electronics and electrical systems - it makes no difference whether on the ground or in orbit - the principals remain the same

"Why all the fuss ?" probably expresses my thought poorly. My thought was "Why all the fuss about tracking ?" The final location of an aircraft tells us almost nothing about what happened. We want and need to know what happened and how it happened - perhaps even a little about why it happened.

If I had family on-board such as MH370, I would hope to know answers to all of these questions, and not simply "where did it go ?"

The technology exists to get this job done, and has been in use for some time on military aircraft. However, it would cost a fair bit of money to get it done, and the airline industry will never spend the money in response to a "one in a million occurrence:" The technology is an ejectable CVR/FDR embedded in base of the tail of the aircraft. It can be turned off, but merely switches to battery. The unit causes its own ejection, together with all aircraft data, when the aircraft is about to crash. It is crashproof, and floats giving out a strong ELT beacon, with coordinates, which can be instantly received by satellite. Not perfect, but an enormous advance, which will never happen due to the cost.

Of course, nothing will help if there is a coverup.

[2fishin2]

Ah, so you are a whiz at electronics and electricity. I bow to your superior knowledge of these things on the ground. However, the fact that all of these systems exist on modern aircraft, does not make them essential in order to "control and fly the aircraft ". "Cooking facilities" for example have little to do with aircraft control. Almost all systems on modern aircraft can either be switched off or isolated by pulling the breaker for that circuit. That's the way that it is for safety reasons. Is it overkill ? Sure it is, but then a passenger aircraft can't just pull into the local electronics/electric service centre when they have a problem !

I don't make these decisions about aircraft design. Hundreds of genuinely expert people make these decisions for the safety of the passengers and crew. They consider every contingency. no matter how small.

My point was about ground control of circuitry, and I have not changed that view. I do completely agree about on-board control of a tracking system. If the system can be shut down by pilots or others, it negates the entire purpose of the system. By the way GPS can be jammed -- units to do this can be bought on-line.

I have no answer to this tracking dilemma. However, I do know that if MH370 had been tracked to itsdestination, we would still know little more than its location. We would likely still not know what happend. So why all the fuss ?

seriously why all the fuss ?

If your children parents grandchildren wife had been on that plane yeh sure why all the fuss - maybe they were abducted by aliens .....right ?

google can track me into my bathroom when I take a dump - yet an aircraft can simply disappear without a trace, what we do know is that the transponder was manually switched off - my own opinion is that one of the pilots lost the plot and the aircraft was driven into the sea somewhere - a mental profile of the men in the cockpit would reveal what really happened and why, I suspect that is something that is being covered up

My post above was simply highlighting all the systems on an aircraft that pose a fire hazard or a risk - gps is not one of them

and yes I am an engineer of electronics and electrical systems - it makes no difference whether on the ground or in orbit - the principals remain the same

"Why all the fuss ?" probably expresses my thought poorly. My thought was "Why all the fuss about tracking ?" The final location of an aircraft tells us almost nothing about what happened. We want and need to know what happened and how it happened - perhaps even a little about why it happened.

If I had family on-board such as MH370, I would hope to know answers to all of these questions, and not simply "where did it go ?"

The technology exists to get this job done, and has been in use for some time on military aircraft. However, it would cost a fair bit of money to get it done, and the airline industry will never spend the money in response to a "one in a million occurrence:" The technology is an ejectable CVR/FDR embedded in base of the tail of the aircraft. It can be turned off, but merely switches to battery. The unit causes its own ejection, together with all aircraft data, when the aircraft is about to crash. It is crashproof, and floats giving out a strong ELT beacon, with coordinates, which can be instantly received by satellite. Not perfect, but an enormous advance, which will never happen due to the cost.

Of course, nothing will help if there is a coverup.

None of the military acft I ever worked on has such a system....

[tigermonkey]

Ah, so you are a whiz at electronics and electricity. I bow to your superior knowledge of these things on the ground. However, the fact that all of these systems exist on modern aircraft, does not make them essential in order to "control and fly the aircraft ". "Cooking facilities" for example have little to do with aircraft control. Almost all systems on modern aircraft can either be switched off or isolated by pulling the breaker for that circuit. That's the way that it is for safety reasons. Is it overkill ? Sure it is, but then a passenger aircraft can't just pull into the local electronics/electric service centre when they have a problem !

I don't make these decisions about aircraft design. Hundreds of genuinely expert people make these decisions for the safety of the passengers and crew. They consider every contingency. no matter how small.

My point was about ground control of circuitry, and I have not changed that view. I do completely agree about on-board control of a tracking system. If the system can be shut down by pilots or others, it negates the entire purpose of the system. By the way GPS can be jammed -- units to do this can be bought on-line.

I have no answer to this tracking dilemma. However, I do know that if MH370 had been tracked to itsdestination, we would still know little more than its location. We would likely still not know what happend. So why all the fuss ?

seriously why all the fuss ?

If your children parents grandchildren wife had been on that plane yeh sure why all the fuss - maybe they were abducted by aliens .....right ?

google can track me into my bathroom when I take a dump - yet an aircraft can simply disappear without a trace, what we do know is that the transponder was manually switched off - my own opinion is that one of the pilots lost the plot and the aircraft was driven into the sea somewhere - a mental profile of the men in the cockpit would reveal what really happened and why, I suspect that is something that is being covered up

My post above was simply highlighting all the systems on an aircraft that pose a fire hazard or a risk - gps is not one of them

and yes I am an engineer of electronics and electrical systems - it makes no difference whether on the ground or in orbit - the principals remain the same

"Why all the fuss ?" probably expresses my thought poorly. My thought was "Why all the fuss about tracking ?" The final location of an aircraft tells us almost nothing about what happened. We want and need to know what happened and how it happened - perhaps even a little about why it happened.

If I had family on-board such as MH370, I would hope to know answers to all of these questions, and not simply "where did it go ?"

The technology exists to get this job done, and has been in use for some time on military aircraft. However, it would cost a fair bit of money to get it done, and the airline industry will never spend the money in response to a "one in a million occurrence:" The technology is an ejectable CVR/FDR embedded in base of the tail of the aircraft. It can be turned off, but merely switches to battery. The unit causes its own ejection, together with all aircraft data, when the aircraft is about to crash. It is crashproof, and floats giving out a strong ELT beacon, with coordinates, which can be instantly received by satellite. Not perfect, but an enormous advance, which will never happen due to the cost.

Of course, nothing will help if there is a coverup.

None of the military acft I ever worked onOne

One example:

"DRS Technologies has manufactured ejectable recorders since the 1960s, and they are installed on military F/A-18C, D, E and F model aircraft. The recorders eject from the plane automatically when triggered by an impact sensor or the use of an ejection seat. When ejected over water, the recorders then float until found."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/12/ejectable-recorders-plane-crash-data-voice-black-boxes/6338397/

[smedly]

"Why all the fuss ?" probably expresses my thought poorly. My thought was "Why all the fuss about tracking ?" The final location of an aircraft tells us almost nothing about what happened. We want and need to know what happened and how it happened - perhaps even a little about why it happened.

If I had family on-board such as MH370, I would hope to know answers to all of these questions, and not simply "where did it go ?"

The technology exists to get this job done, and has been in use for some time on military aircraft. However, it would cost a fair bit of money to get it done, and the airline industry will never spend the money in response to a "one in a million occurrence:" The technology is an ejectable CVR/FDR embedded in base of the tail of the aircraft. It can be turned off, but merely switches to battery. The unit causes its own ejection, together with all aircraft data, when the aircraft is about to crash. It is crashproof, and floats giving out a strong ELT beacon, with coordinates, which can be instantly received by satellite. Not perfect, but an enormous advance, which will never happen due to the cost.

Of course, nothing will help if there is a coverup.

None of the military acft I ever worked onOne

One example:

"DRS Technologies has manufactured ejectable recorders since the 1960s, and they are installed on military F/A-18C, D, E and F model aircraft. The recorders eject from the plane automatically when triggered by an impact sensor or the use of an ejection seat. When ejected over water, the recorders then float until found."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/12/ejectable-recorders-plane-crash-data-voice-black-boxes/6338397/

That is without doubt an option, maybe nothing quite as elaborate as on military craft but is certainly something that might be possible on commercial aircraft inside an exterior panel and triggered/ejected like a car airbag on impact designed to activate a beacon and remain active for at least 30 days, watching Sundays episode of topgear they demonstrated a watch that had a similar functionality but time limited to (I assume by the battery capacity) to 24hrs