6 ms·

That article used the word "expensive" many times, but I really have no idea what that translates to. What could be more expensive than losing a few hundred liv

That article used the word "expensive" many times, but I really have no idea what that translates to. What could be more expensive than losing a few hundred lives and an aircraft? Does the tech used in PLBs such as the spot messenger not work over the ocean?

dzhiurgis 12y ago
They do. That's what they are intended for. They even make lifejackets with then nowadays. Pathetic. Edit: did not see parent mentioned SPOT messenger. These have reduced coverage, as they are not emergency beacons.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Note that SPOT coverage is not worldwide, and it won't work in some parts of the world, both ocean and land: http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=108 http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=108 It is quite good though, and would have worked for the mysterious Malaysia disappearance as well as the recent one. I'm sure other systems exist with better coverage and higher prices.
  - dzhiurgis 12y ago
    Is that same as EPIRB run on Cospas-Sarsat programme? The coverage looks quite similar http://www.marsat.ru/coverage%20maps/GAN_coverage_I3.gif http://www.marsat.ru/coverage%20maps/GAN_coverage_I3.gif
    - mikeash 12y ago
      It seems that the underlying service is run by Globalstar: http://www.globalstar.com/en/index.php?cid=106&sidenav=232 http://www.globalstar.com/en/index.php?cid=106&sidenav=232 It looks like Cospas-Sarsat is for emergency use only, while SPOT is used both for emergency location and for routine tracking.
jdhawk 12y ago
You have to have Boeing/Airbus approved hardware, which will come from one of the big boys in Aero Electronics (Garmin/Honeywell...) and cost megabucks due to all the redundancy, testing, engineering. You have to have it approved by the airline, which requires all kinds of testing and red tape. You have to take the airplane out of service in order to install it, and train tech's to maintain and diagnose it, which means updated documentation. You have to train pilots on its functions, and how to use it properly, and all the implications of a malfunction in the hardware. Cost != airtime + cheap PCBS slapped in a dome on top of the airframe.
foobarqux 12y ago
> What could be more expensive than losing a few hundred lives and an aircraft? They aren't infinitely valuable. It's easier to understand this if you don't think of money but of labor and resources. How many days/months/years are you willing to work to provide such a feature? How much electricity, copper, oil? (Also, satellite tracking would not have prevented the crash or loss of life).
majormajor 12y ago
"What could be more expensive than losing a few hundred lives and an aircraft?" It seems to me like we'd still have lost these aircraft, we'd just be able to find the wreckage faster. But in the middle of an ocean that isn't currently covered, does that translate into being able to rescue anybody quickly enough to save lives? Or is it losing lives, losing an aircraft, and paying to just know where the wreckage is?

dzhiurgis 12y ago

They do. That's what they are intended for. They even make lifejackets with then nowadays. Pathetic. Edit: did not see parent mentioned SPOT messenger. These have reduced coverage, as they are not emergency beacons.

mikeash 12y ago
Note that SPOT coverage is not worldwide, and it won't work in some parts of the world, both ocean and land: http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=108 http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=108 It is quite good though, and would have worked for the mysterious Malaysia disappearance as well as the recent one. I'm sure other systems exist with better coverage and higher prices.
- dzhiurgis 12y ago
  Is that same as EPIRB run on Cospas-Sarsat programme? The coverage looks quite similar http://www.marsat.ru/coverage%20maps/GAN_coverage_I3.gif http://www.marsat.ru/coverage%20maps/GAN_coverage_I3.gif
  - mikeash 12y ago
    It seems that the underlying service is run by Globalstar: http://www.globalstar.com/en/index.php?cid=106&sidenav=232 http://www.globalstar.com/en/index.php?cid=106&sidenav=232 It looks like Cospas-Sarsat is for emergency use only, while SPOT is used both for emergency location and for routine tracking.

jdhawk 12y ago

You have to have Boeing/Airbus approved hardware, which will come from one of the big boys in Aero Electronics (Garmin/Honeywell...) and cost megabucks due to all the redundancy, testing, engineering. You have to have it approved by the airline, which requires all kinds of testing and red tape. You have to take the airplane out of service in order to install it, and train tech's to maintain and diagnose it, which means updated documentation. You have to train pilots on its functions, and how to use it properly, and all the implications of a malfunction in the hardware. Cost != airtime + cheap PCBS slapped in a dome on top of the airframe.

foobarqux 12y ago

> What could be more expensive than losing a few hundred lives and an aircraft? They aren't infinitely valuable. It's easier to understand this if you don't think of money but of labor and resources. How many days/months/years are you willing to work to provide such a feature? How much electricity, copper, oil? (Also, satellite tracking would not have prevented the crash or loss of life).

majormajor 12y ago

"What could be more expensive than losing a few hundred lives and an aircraft?" It seems to me like we'd still have lost these aircraft, we'd just be able to find the wreckage faster. But in the middle of an ocean that isn't currently covered, does that translate into being able to rescue anybody quickly enough to save lives? Or is it losing lives, losing an aircraft, and paying to just know where the wreckage is?