4 ms·
Well if this idea can't survive being dropped, it's not much good is it? Sorry... > Interestingly, modern flight data recorders are required to have an under
by slipframe 5y ago
Well if this idea can't survive being dropped, it's not much good is it? Sorry...
> Interestingly, modern flight data recorders are required to have an underwater locator beacon that pulses once per second at 37.5 kilohertz for 30 days and is supposed to be detectable at depths of at least 14,000 feet (4,267 meters). But they don’t have comparable beacons for crashes on land.
After Japan Airlines Flight 123, that is shocking to me.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- na85 5y ago>But they don’t have comparable beacons for crashes on land. Well, they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_... But the reason you need underwater beacons in particular is that the water absorbs RF signals, so you'll actually use acoustic beacons underwater. Such a device would be useless above the water since air is so much less dense.
- slipframe 5y agoFrom what I understand in America, small airplanes are required to have ELTs/EPIRBs, but airliners are exempt. I don't know why that would be, maybe lobbying.
- FooHentai 5y agoPossibly their size means they're remote trackable (e.g. radar) already by gov/military when over or near land. This may not be the case with small aircraft. Total guess, of course.