Well then have the fuse on the unit, rather than somewhere it could be pulled easily, is what I'm saying. Making these units tamper proof is something they have to be considering now, even if this case is just an accident. Of course, considering the options is a far cry from making them happen. I'm sure it'll be "too expensive".
Or just not attach it to the plane's power system at all as I suggested. If it's completely self-contained and just bolted on the outside, there is no way for it to be disabled intentionally or by malfunction of the plane during flight. That also makes it easier to retrofit onto existing planes.
Well, they are not really convenient to get to already, but if you're at the point you are going down the emergency checklist and pulling breakers to isolate a fire, you need that access. But is this really an issue? In incidents where CVR/FDRs have not been available for investigations it hasn't been because they were tampered with, and there's no reason to think that's the case with MH370, either.
That's true. When they haven't been available, it's been cases where it wasn't known exactly where the crash happened, and it has taken time to find it. The idea of a floating buoy is something that will separate from the plane upon impact and send a locator signal. Had this plane or Air France 447 had such a device, the crash would have been found quickly, most likely within a day.
Reports from high Malaysian officials are saying that it appears that plane intentionally flew around Indonesia to avoid detection. Assuming this is true, it further increases the odds that this was an intentional act. The first course/altitude change was definitely human controlled. However, for this set of changes there was small argument that could be made that an accident happened on board. (Still unlikely because an accident that would take out a whole bunch of equipment but yet leave the plane totally flyable is just not likely, particularly with the redundancies for each system. And, particularly when it happened at the best possible moment between air traffic controllers to obscure the event.) However, we knew that there must've been another course/altitude change after that to get to the Southern Indian ocean. This was also human controlled however was not consistent with an accident. Now, if you add in the more complex maneuverings specifically around Indonesia, it's clearly human intervention with the intent to hide what happened. We just don't know who or why. Mr Awe
If they find the wreckage, they might find clues on the plane, both amongst the plane itself and the passengers. But, certainly, it's possible we may never know. Mr Awe
^ If it didn't come from this plane, then what the hell is down there making pings? And I could see the Chinese getting & losing the signal, with the short-range equipment they were using.
Well, obviously you can't just drill some holes and attach anything to the plane, but it's not that uncommon to attach things to the outside of a plane (antennas, winglets, weapons/tanks on military planes, etc.) Clearly the placement and design of such a device would have to be done with aerodynamics in mind.
^ When you wrote "just bolted on the outside" really seemed to imply that it was an easy thing. It's not! And, you'd need a unique solution for each type of aircraft. Not saying that it's not doable, but it's not a quicky and easy way either. Something does need to be done. Personally, I'd rather spend the money on data streaming to satellites. Mr Awe
We know exactly where most plane crashes occur, and since most planes don't crash, whatever fix they come up with will have to be pretty inexpensive for the airlines to absorb the time and cost of retrofitting fleets of planes. I heard that airlines and the FAA aren't the most cooperative groups when it comes to making changes, so it will probably be years before everyone agrees on how to solve this issue.
^ Most crashes lead to some changes. The question is what will be done for this specific case. Also, as the number of purely accidental crashes declines, the issue of intentional acts becomes relatively more important. At some point, they'll need to address this in terms of preserving flight data.
Looking at the map, there's 4 locations within 17 miles or so. How many things from the plane send out signals? Or could a given one seem in different spots?
I am very impressed with the design of this ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADV_Ocean_Shield How the bow seems to reach up and all but surround the foc'sle, it seems to have been built with freak waves in mind. And with that helipad up top, I wonder if the bridge windows ever get wet. The visibility must be great with that de facto sun shield. I wonder if James Cameron could lobby for his old ride to be used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Mstislav_Keldysh
Looks like an inverted bow (sometimes referred to as an X bow) type ship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_bow It's supposed to improve handling in rough seas and cause less hydrodynamic drag, which is better for fuel economy.