The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
I am making $85/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.
The reply button doesn't work for me, so I'll put this here.
MH370's transponder was not operating for reasons widely speculated about , but unknown.
"The danger posed by other aircraft is now, arguably, trumped by that posed by drones.". Can I start that argument? I'm aware of quite a few fatal accidents in recent years caused by collisions between manned aircraft and none caused by manned aircraft coliding with unmanned aircraft.
Admitedly, none of the colisions I have in mind have involved large airliners and, if we assume that large airliners are completely immune from coliding with each other or other manned aircraft, just one being brought down by an unmanned aircraft could really tilt the fatality statistics, but if no drone has yet managed to fatally bring down one of the very numerous and presumably more delicate small planes crowding the skies, how likely are they to bring down a Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, ATR, etc.?
I'm aware of one non-fatal training flight accident allegedly
caused by a badly botched attempt to avoid an unmanned aircraft. I don't know all of the details of the story told by the student pilot and instructor, but what I have heard gives me little faith that they are telling the full story.
So, my position on this argument is that there is a proven danger of manned aircraft causing fatal accidents with other aircraft, but no proven danger of unmanned aircraft doing the same. Other manned aircraft are almost certainly the larger danger. Research should be done by firing a variety of unmanned aircraft into a few different types of engine to see if some should be regulated more strictly and if others can be regulated more loosely. Unfortunately, that's expensive.
Fortunately, these aircraft do not often fly in flocks, so the risk of taking down a large jet should be small as they're all required to be able to fly safely with one engine inoperative. It takes a flock of birds to bring down a multi-engine aircraft.
First, I will definitely google giant concrete arrows of our predecessor aviators. Secondly, if anyone likes to read about radar and WW2. I do recommend the radar/U Boat study on the English channel - very interesting stuff.
Very interesting. Does the system track aircraft at all altitudes and all locations or only around airports / busy urban areas?
How did flight MH370 go missing if modern aircraft are fitted with continuous tracking systems?
Good article! However, the correct acronym is ADS-B not ADB-S.