Всё
← Back to Squawk list
Out of Control - Why Can Pilots Still Shut Off Transponders?
Interesting discussion regarding the off switch on transponders. (www.nytimes.com) Ещё...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Asked and answered further down.
Dear friend , ' black box ' , sounds familiar ?
Can someone fiddle with it ? Even some specific hazards like fire , water and the like ?
Why ? Was it like this since the beginning ? If it changed, why was it changed ?
This is the kind of approach needed for such equipment !
Can someone fiddle with it ? Even some specific hazards like fire , water and the like ?
Why ? Was it like this since the beginning ? If it changed, why was it changed ?
This is the kind of approach needed for such equipment !
Like anything they can be tampered with by someone intending harm. It is reasonably presumed that would never be the pilot.
The "black boxes" are now a bright, aviation orange to facilitate their discovery in an accident scene. But electronic boxes can be black or any other color. On the plane I worked on, they were black or tan.
The orange boxes holding flight data and cockpit voice are now designed to withstand so many degrees temperature for a given period. The duration has increased over the years with subsequent designs as the ability for fire retardant and temperature-resistant materials are improved.
As for access to disable any equipment which may be the source of fire, that shall never change.
The "black boxes" are now a bright, aviation orange to facilitate their discovery in an accident scene. But electronic boxes can be black or any other color. On the plane I worked on, they were black or tan.
The orange boxes holding flight data and cockpit voice are now designed to withstand so many degrees temperature for a given period. The duration has increased over the years with subsequent designs as the ability for fire retardant and temperature-resistant materials are improved.
As for access to disable any equipment which may be the source of fire, that shall never change.
Inflammability can be sorted out. That's not a big problem given the necessity .
It's the question of cost-benefit-ratio angle, no more no less.
Like for "black boxes" .
And what some of you have missed that when I say 'tamper proof', it can always include a system of giving a signal as and when the tampering (switching off a vital locational system) is being done .
Do you mean that it is the prerogative of the PIC to decide whether to make the aircraft invisible, electronically, or not ?
Is it a safe prerogative ? Even if the abuse occurs once in one year or once in 10 years ?
It's the question of cost-benefit-ratio angle, no more no less.
Like for "black boxes" .
And what some of you have missed that when I say 'tamper proof', it can always include a system of giving a signal as and when the tampering (switching off a vital locational system) is being done .
Do you mean that it is the prerogative of the PIC to decide whether to make the aircraft invisible, electronically, or not ?
Is it a safe prerogative ? Even if the abuse occurs once in one year or once in 10 years ?
You are expecting to equip an aircraft on the automatic assumption a pilot will at some point intentionally tamper or alter the configuration for the sole purpose of ill-intent. At that point, why not just put monkeys in the flight deck and fly the airliner like a remotely-operated military drone?
The probability of an airline pilot or any pilot carrying out such an act is far south of the 0.08% of concealed handgun license holders who commit a crime. I can think of only one case in the United States and that was an off-duty FedEx pilot facing termination. That's one pilot out of some 600,000 US pilots which includes air carrier and charter operators.
Now, I'm going to turn this around in such a politically incorrect way it's bound to piss off someone though I really don't care....
There is indeed a crash (Egypt Air 990) where the cause was clearly a Muslim suicide taking more than two hundred passengers with him. Though the Egyptian aviation authorities claimed differently and called it mechanical error, I'll put a lot more trust into the NTSB and Boeing who built the plane to say there was no mechanical error. The probable cause was inconclusive only to the point they did not explain why the first officer's actions were as indicated on the FDR. But it does not take a Phd based on CVR and FDR data to understand his actions were intentional to crash a plane.
So... How about we put Muslim pilots through a much greater mental health screening? Or, perhaps we ban all Muslims from being pilots? No other religion in the past couple hundred years has a record of committing acts seated in their religion. Certainly that's a rational basis for such action?
Yes, that's being a bit extreme. And, so is forbidding a pilot from having absolute control over the aircraft and its equipment as his responsibility.
The probability of an airline pilot or any pilot carrying out such an act is far south of the 0.08% of concealed handgun license holders who commit a crime. I can think of only one case in the United States and that was an off-duty FedEx pilot facing termination. That's one pilot out of some 600,000 US pilots which includes air carrier and charter operators.
Now, I'm going to turn this around in such a politically incorrect way it's bound to piss off someone though I really don't care....
There is indeed a crash (Egypt Air 990) where the cause was clearly a Muslim suicide taking more than two hundred passengers with him. Though the Egyptian aviation authorities claimed differently and called it mechanical error, I'll put a lot more trust into the NTSB and Boeing who built the plane to say there was no mechanical error. The probable cause was inconclusive only to the point they did not explain why the first officer's actions were as indicated on the FDR. But it does not take a Phd based on CVR and FDR data to understand his actions were intentional to crash a plane.
So... How about we put Muslim pilots through a much greater mental health screening? Or, perhaps we ban all Muslims from being pilots? No other religion in the past couple hundred years has a record of committing acts seated in their religion. Certainly that's a rational basis for such action?
Yes, that's being a bit extreme. And, so is forbidding a pilot from having absolute control over the aircraft and its equipment as his responsibility.
So let us close on the optimistic note that nothing bad happens. And MH 370 disappearance has nothing to do with transponder bieng off.
I do not wish to dilate any more on this.
Regards
I do not wish to dilate any more on this.
Regards
You forgot that that aircraft was tracked by Thailand's military radar and had pings on satellite that had the aircraft on a southwesterly course towards the Indian Ocean. The aircraft is still visible to radar and satellites even with the IFF transponder off. The big question (and problem) is why these agencies did not effectively communicate and coordinate with one another after the aircraft's IFF signal was first lost. The Malaysian authorities took hours before they label the plane as missing. After the plane was initially lost, it appears that there was a lack luster attempt to find out if it was a successful hand off to the next ATC in route controller. Also, the fact that it happened at the precise time to hand off to the next controller leans toward someone purposely hijacking the plane at a very critical time. I wonder if this was a location/time where the radar and communication coverage was spotty. If so, it does not surprise me that the lost contact response time was too long. There are a lot of questions to be answered. However Mr Er.A.K. Mittal, shutting off the IFF transponder only prevents the plane from broadcasting IFF data. It does not make it invisible to radar or a satellite ping.
To clarify, civilian aircraft do not have actual IFF or "Identification - Friend or Foe" installed. It's a simple transponder with a combination of 4096 codes. Military aircraft have an additional code which is installed before each sortie.
I have no clue what they use now but the KYs thirty years ago used a handheld box that a set of some twenty needles set to varying lengths based on the code for the day. We kept the codes in our shop safe and each one was burned after use. If it was lost or misplaced it was a pretty serious offense.
The handheld box was pressed into the KY box which set a digital code based on those needles. The little door was shut. If it was reopened, the code resets to zip.
For clarification, there was a KY-27 and a KY-28. One was for IFF and the other secure data/voice. I cannot recall which one was which. I'm sure those systems have long since been upgraded though it wouldn't take much to improve most. The computer on the S-3 Viking could be wildly outdone by a popular home computer of the time... a Commodore 64.
One last note... primary radar which Steeljaw alludes to is less efficient in distance than a return from a transponder. My understanding is a transponder will add about fifty miles at lower altitudes.
I have no clue what they use now but the KYs thirty years ago used a handheld box that a set of some twenty needles set to varying lengths based on the code for the day. We kept the codes in our shop safe and each one was burned after use. If it was lost or misplaced it was a pretty serious offense.
The handheld box was pressed into the KY box which set a digital code based on those needles. The little door was shut. If it was reopened, the code resets to zip.
For clarification, there was a KY-27 and a KY-28. One was for IFF and the other secure data/voice. I cannot recall which one was which. I'm sure those systems have long since been upgraded though it wouldn't take much to improve most. The computer on the S-3 Viking could be wildly outdone by a popular home computer of the time... a Commodore 64.
One last note... primary radar which Steeljaw alludes to is less efficient in distance than a return from a transponder. My understanding is a transponder will add about fifty miles at lower altitudes.
You are right Ken Lane, thanks for the clarification. I forgot there are civilians on this post. You bring back found memories with the KYs. I was the custodian for my division of the key codes. What a pucker factor! Misplace one of those key codes and you better off jumping overboard. I hated destroying them. You had to do it the day it was suppose to be destroyed, which meant I had to go outside/topside whether rain, sleet ,snow or 20 foot waves. As Ken stated above, once a aircraft is out of radar range,you can still track that aircraft by it's transponder codes. With the right atmospheric conditions, this was normally 50-100 miles, based on the aircraft's altitude. I'm sure that distance could also be affected by other factors ,such as the height of the radar antennae receiver and if it was land base or aboard a ship.
You have been given multiple answers to your questions in such frank and simplistic form that a child could understand them, yet you refuse to accept them, continuing to harangue this thread with your own views, making statements from a non aviator standpoint, rather than accepting an answer given to you in good faith. When you have gotten this way before, I have simply told you to kiss my a** and that I am outa here. I do it again.
Does the transponder mean the following or not ?
Transponder (aviation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)
A transponder (short-for transmitter-responder[1] and sometimes abbreviated to XPDR,[2] XPNDR,[3] TPDR[4] or TP[5]) is an electronic device that produces a response when it receives a radio-frequency interrogation. Aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on air traffic control radar; and collision avoidance systems have been developed to use transponder transmissions as a means of detecting aircraft at risk of colliding with each other.[6][7]
Air traffic control units use the term "squawk" when they are assigning an aircraft a transponder code, e.g., "Squawk 7421". Squawk thus can be said to mean "select transponder code" or "squawking" to mean "I have selected transponder code xxxx .....
If so , ' Why Can Pilots Still Shut Off Transponders? '
And endanger lives of so many people, in that aircraft and of those in other in the neighbourhood ?