I know someone already brought this up; but, seriously, how in 2009 can a modern airliner's location ever not be known in a situation like this? Like, if there already isn't, why couldn't they just put GPS tracking on all aircraft?
Feel free to tell me why this wouldn't work or whatnot, I'm just curious.
This needs to change. People's lives are more important than a few dollars. Safety changes need to be implemented because it's the right thing to do, not because it saves money.
When you say "not water above 30k" are you referring to a level 3/4 return or any return in general (also level 1)?
Also I find even storms that are painting level 2 at 25k produce lightning. I assume these aren't nearly as hazardous to us as level 4 storm but still something I noticed.
This needs to change. People's lives are more important than a few dollars. Safety changes need to be implemented because it's the right thing to do, not because it saves money.
Is there a "usual" place that airliners get struck by lightning? Do they normally get struck on the nose? A wing? Or, is it just completely random?
I'm having a hard time picturing how requiring a GPS tracker would save lives if looked at from a cost/benefit perspective.
It's not random. Normally we use a computer model to describe and define areas of attachment. We label them into zones.
Edit: I should add, in the beginning, before the computer models, we used to take a real model of the aircraft suspended, and do a series of high voltage strikes that would test a number of angles and points around the airframe. Where the probe's transients attached were defined as attachment points.
The computer model is based off the "Rolling ball" idea. Basically rolling a rubber ball along the fuselage until something poking out interrupts the roll.
Some attachment points are, but not exclusive to:
-nose/tail/wing tips
-prop blades
-any control surface
-wings and stabilizers
-antennas
-aircraft hardpoints and external tanks
The few bits of hard data we have on aircraft strikes revolve around a NASA F-106 from back in the day. I think they had over 100 strikes on it and we more or less learned pointy objects on the aircraft are a lightning bolts best friend.
Our data from jet transport aircraft show that more strikes occur outside the cruise regime than in it. Facts show that there are more lightning flashes to be intercepted below about 6 km than above this altitude. Climb- 37%, Level - 25%, Descent - 17%, approach- 21%
Aircraft flying above 0C altitude are likely to be involved in intracloud flashes of either polarity while flying below the 0C altitude are likely to involved with negative polarity flashes.
http://news.aol.com/article/air-france-plane-missing/505817?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fair-france-plane-missing%2F505817RASILIA, Brazil (June 2) – Brazil's Air Force says it has found airplane seats and other debris floating in the Atlantic Ocean along the path that a missing Air France jet was flying. Air Force spokesman Jorge Amaral says the seats were spotted by search planes early Tuesday morning but that authorities cannot immediately confirm they were from the plane.
Yeah I'm not sure if ours is sat based or not. I believe it is Sat based because it ties in with the bluesky sat phone.Not as far as I know.
Cost benefit, it wouldn't. He was arguing that money shouldn't be a factor. I do think that in theory it could help a SAR effort out tremendously, and that would save money or possibly lives.I'm having a hard time picturing how requiring a GPS tracker would save lives if looked at from a cost/benefit perspective.
I wonder if they'll ever find the boxes? The media reported that the depths were up to 15,000ft. What would they use to recover a box in this situation? Maybe one of those submarine deals that scientists use for titanic studies?
Sad situation. Keep the families of the ones who perished in your prayers, that they find peace again one day.