Here
and
Now

opinions

What if the missing Malaysia plane is never found?

19 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

None of the passengers had an iPhone with a Location services turned on? Guess not. Where is the NSA when you really them? And, yes, this is all too sad.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The best we can obtain from this is that aircraft communication systems will improve so planes never go missing again. This is the usual outcome from these airline tragedies.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@patricia yarrow - passengers are required to put their iPhones and other devices into airplane mode, so that they do not transmit when flying...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

What have we learned? Never get onto a plane of which the captain reads books by Richard Dawkins!

The plane (and everything lost) will surface sooner or later again (that is: within a couple billion years).

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@patricia yarrow - even if a passangers phone was transmitting it is like shouting for help in a forest with no one to hear. There aren't many cell towers in that part of the ocean...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

At 35,000ft there is zero chance of cell phones working on their own no matter where the plane is flying. Do the math.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

. If the Transponder did NOT have a turn off switch, then we would know where it went.

Why do they have a off switch, ?

As a transponder would be one way to determine if an aircraft is in trouble as it leaves it flight path plan.

.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Azzprin, ATC generally wants transponders off unless you're in the air. Transponders are turned on just before takeoff and shut off just after landing. (Sometimes transponders are used on the ground at larger airports so ground control can track the locations of planes at gates and taxiways.) So there's a legitimate reason for turning transponders off.

At 35,000ft there is zero chance of cell phones working on their own no matter where the plane is flying. Do the math.

Not that it matters to the people on that plane, but it is very possible to get a cell phone working at 35,000 feet, if you're over land. Cell phones and towers have a range of about 35 miles, when not obstructed by hills and such. And there aren't too many hills that will block signal to a phone that's 7 miles up in the air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site#Range

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Just goes to show you where some governments' priorities lie: the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions on an unnecessary and unwinnable war in Iraq and Afghanistan but will not upgrade systems to help passenger safety. That's government "for the people?"

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Just goes to show you where some governments' priorities lie: the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions on an unnecessary and unwinnable war in Iraq and Afghanistan but will not upgrade systems to help passenger safety. That's government "for the people?"

Uhhh... I thought Boeing was responsible for designing marketing and selling the Boeing 777-200ER jetliner. (and isn't this particular one being managed by Malaysia?) Can you wrap your head around the fact that the US government isn't responsible for every single wrongdoing that happens around the world? I know THOUSANDS of Boeing jets drop out of the sky everyday, but I think Boeing is trying their best with what cash isn't being shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mocheake

...the U.S. can spend hundreds of billions on an unnecessary and unwinnable war in Iraq and Afghanistan but will not upgrade systems to help passenger safety.

Upgrades in systems aboard commercial airliners are paid for by the airline that owns the aircraft, not the government. If a higher tech system, be it for navigation, entertainment, etc., isn't incorporated in a plane that you're flying on, the reason is because the company operating that plane didn't see it as necessary and, more importantly, profitable. Money spent by the DoD has no bearing on what the FAA chooses to require of airlines operating in U.S. airspace. If you want better/active tracking functions on the commercial planes you fly on, then be prepared to pay for it yourself through increased fares.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Perhaps we have all been deceived by those Hollywood sci-fi movies about technology which is not as advanced as we thought or are too expensive to be put in an ordinary plane like the 777. It might be several more decades before it is possible, cost-wise, to have all commercial planes trackable 24/7 via present technologies bearing in mind their cost and complexities. As long as there are no accidents and planes get safely to their destinations daily, there is no push towards total trackability of planes. Someone in the multi-national search & locate teams said 'Eyes are the best way left for the final part of the search'. The Chinese have sent 2 huge Russian made aircraft with plenty of 'eyeballs through aircraft windows' search capability.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why do they have a off switch, ?

From Ask the Pilot-

" In fact very few of a plane’s components are hot-wired to be, as you might say, “always on.” In the interest of safety — namely, fire and electrical system protection — it’s important to have the ability to isolate a piece of equipment, either by a standard switch or, if need be, through a circuit breaker. Also transponders will occasionally malfunction and transmit erroneous or incomplete data, at which point a crew will recycle the device — switching it off, then on — or swap to another unit. Typically at least two transponders are onboard, and you can’t run both simultaneously."

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Where is the NSA when you really them?

The NSA is for spying on people, not finding missing aircraft.

BTW, FU NSA

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

There is no criminal case if the police can't find neither the corp nor the weapon.

Good infographic on lost planes since 1948:

http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-03-13/vanishing-planes-mapped-since-1948.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Uh, to the people who didn't understand my post, I was referring to new systems at airports as the article mentioned starting with 'Part of the problem...". It would make little sense for airlines to upgrade onboard systems if the airports were still using antiquated technology. Jessenstein, just because you can't understand what's written, you shouldn't think it necessary to use sarcasm or try to talk down to people. I never mentioned Boeing and I am talking about the airline industry as a whole and addressing the crumbling U.S. infrastructure where money is sorely needed for repair/upgrade in many areas. I understand the situation - probably better than you.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Mocheake

Uh, to the people who didn't understand my post, I was referring to new systems at airports as the article mentioned starting with 'Part of the problem...". It would make little sense for airlines to upgrade onboard systems if the airports were still using antiquated technology.

You do know that controllers at airports only control the airspace immediately surrounding the airport and track flights within roughly a 15 mile (nautical) radius of the airfield? To make a commercial flight trackable from take-off to landing, the aircraft has to be equipped with a system that actively reports its position, a system that would have to be installed in all commercial airliners and would cost quite a lot of money for the airlines. Because 99+% of flights arrive at their destination safely, it's just not cost effective or necessary frankly. The cost for what you are demanding, 100% tracking of flights, would be borne by the airlines so I really don't see how the US Federal Budget is spent has anything to do with this. All that the U.S. Government/FAA can do is pass laws/regulations requiring airlines to make their planes trackable, but that certainly doesn't cost the taxpayer anything and wouldn't be affected by Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom? Still don't see why you're blaming the government. Care to explain?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm not demanding anything or blaming anybody but I bet if you had a loved one missing you'd understand and would be demanding a lot. Here it is in plain terms: they can do more. Just because it costs a lot and airlines are lost at a rate of less than one percent doesn't mean that we should settle for what is there now as if that's the best that can be done. I don't need a lecture on what the U.S. government /FAA can do. I realize you are in the navy but I know all about it as I was in operations in that area BEFORE the first Iraq War. Money spent on that war over the past 10 years could have been better spent elsewhere whether you agree or not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You did blame someone, the U.S. Government. You very clearly established a correlation in your first post in which you equated money spent by the DoD out of the federal budget and the lack of FAA regulations that require commercial airlines to incorporate certain equipment. It's not a causal relationship as you're insinuating. Had we not gotten involved in foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else commercial airliners still would be equipped the same way they are today. You obviously feel that money spent by the U.S. Government on OIF and OEF was a waste, but to say that same money would/could have made airliners safer today is irrational since as I've explained the cost of safety features like tracking systems is borne by airlines and not the government. As for doing more, naturally there can always be more done. But there never will be a day when all measures, safety or otherwise, are mandated by law because it's simply cost prohibitive and we're talking about for-profit companies in this case and not entities that aren't concerned by the bottom-line, like NASA, the military, etc. Airlines could certainly equip such tracking systems, install airbags in each seat, or fly with full fuel tanks on every flight but they don't because it's not worth it to go bankrupt in order to prepare for an extremely small probability. I'm sure you'd feel differently if you were to see what airfares would be if, as you, "they did more."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites