Can Technology Avoid Air Crashes?

Use drones to fly/drive under the flight path emitting ultrasound to planes and drones in a more complete location system around the airport. Long range thermal imaging. Use interplane microwave radar replicator transmission network. Emit triangulating laser micro firing solution to three pathway agents. Use balloon radar. Use master slave steering transmitter that selects crash avoidance controller, eg. military aircraft over hijacker pilot; yes please!

Yep!! All it costs is money fo rthe additional systems. Would help the economy.

Better comes cheaper! I don't have to prove that it's already been shown in numerous products. But employment for more in a bigger functional system is a real goal of economy spending; therefore 'greater accuracy allows greater functionality with reduced safety margins'! :)

Certainly the parasitic cash cow transponders attached to the non regulated tails of new plastic planes required to play footsie with the droneheaded leaders of the far thinking robot senators will reduce falling debris caused by blind pilots.

However until Estes and Cobra Rocket company make 250 mph drone leaders that pull on Bellencas using the carbon nanotube wires of the Linkbelt cranes intended for hardy toys, some flaws in operations are likely.

Radar screen blasts may well crowd controllers screens to the point where only human pilots and their associates will have rhetorical opportunities.

P.S. Whose the biggest crazy cat?

The NextGen system seems to have addressed these issues to some degree. The ADS-B is a GPS based system that will provide info to the Air Traffic Controllers instead of using ground based radar. The problem with the accident was that it was in a VFR corridor, which avoidance was based on "see and avoid". Let's see how the investigation plays out before jumping to conclusions and trying to put more black boxes on airplanes.

The problem lies in equipping all of the planes with the ADS-B equipment, cost and installation. There are some planes flying that don't even have an electrical system, and fly legally and safely every day using the "see and avoid" method.

This technology should be fine for any aircraft / flight that would currently have to file a flight plan. Use it to replace the transponders currently aboard IFR rated aircraft, and leave everyone else who flys under VFR alone.

This is slightly off topic, but why don't they equip ELTs with GPS receivers which would transmit their coordinates when activated? It would make finding the buggers a whole lot easier.

Bill

One major issue with GPS in aircraft is that while GPS is quite accurate in giving earth surface locations, it is not as accurate in the Z-axis. This means that altitude information is of limited use. If the GPS is averaged with an inertial system and compared to the air data information normally measured, you can get a more accurate system. Unfortunately, this type of solution is expensive.

Also, GPS data can come and go depending on the aircraft location in relation to the GPS constellation. This is not a problem if you are just referencing GPS as a sanity check to your Baroset Altitude, but if it holds a more critical role in collision avoidance, you had best have a "smart" backup monitoring and reverting to another type of system until GPS is back and is dependable again.

This does not diminish the benefit of having the GPS suppliment the role of the FAA radar in areas without good coverage.

Farmers Son

Reason for declaring my last statement as off topic, is that the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) is activated after the aircraft has suffered a rough landing (sometimes without the benefit of an airport underneath it). It would make it much easier for the Search and Rescue people to find it given the GPS coordinates from its location. A fancier version might also transmit the "N" number of the aircraft too.

Bill

Soon to be a new requirement is to replace the old ELT's, which transmit on 121.50 and 243.00 Mhz, with an ELT that transmits on 406 Mhz. This new frequency is monitored by satellites and can be located to within about 2 km in about 4 hours after activation. It also transmits a discrete code to the satellite which identifies the N number of the aircraft.

Not quite GPS accurate, but a lot closer that the old ELT's.

I considered making a DF (direction finding) antenna for 406 MHz, but I gather these ELTs send their data out in a burst of about one second at a rate of once per minute. This makes it kind of rough to use conventional direction finding techniques to find the aircraft. I think optimum would be the 406 MHz with 121.5 (with its traditional squeel) to allow the ground pounders to get to the aircraft. OR if the 406 MHz ELT transmitted SOMETHING (carrier or squeel) when it was not sending data bursts. Also a 406 MHz DF antenna is small (about 6 inches by 6 inches) compared to 121.5 (26 inches by 50 inches)... much easier to handle out in the brush.

Bill