Todos
← Back to Squawk list
IATA calls for global tracking of aircraft
IATA has called on the aviation industry to “make a safe industry even safer” by developing a better way to track aircraft following the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 March 8. Speaking at the IATA OPS conference in Kuala Lumpur, IATA DG and CEO Tony Tyler said governments and industry should focus on partnerships, data analysis and runway safety. He also committed IATA to formulating a unified industry position on global tracking of aircraft. (atwonline.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
As Malaysia is one of the 191 member states of the ICAO they are a party to recommendations (directions) set out by the ICAO. One document of many is:
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/edocs/cns/ADSB_AIGD6.pdf
Have a good sleep.
http://www.icao.int/APAC/Documents/edocs/cns/ADSB_AIGD6.pdf
Have a good sleep.
But Malaysian government owns the airline, controls the regulator that oversees civil aviation, controls the military that may or may not have reacted appropriately to a missing passenger airliner, and has jurisdiction over and control of the investigation of this missing plane.
What leverage or authority does the NTSB have in getting the Malaysians to even answer simple questions, like did the airline replace the flight recorder pincers/ batteries when they were due for replacement in 2012.
When the current equipment may not have been kept maintained in working condition, how much more value will be derived from future requirements if they are not followed by some airlines/ regulators?
How can international passengers protect themselves from unequal levels of safety available in different parts of the world (as not all airlines/ regulators have the same commitment to safety)?
What leverage or authority does the NTSB have in getting the Malaysians to even answer simple questions, like did the airline replace the flight recorder pincers/ batteries when they were due for replacement in 2012.
When the current equipment may not have been kept maintained in working condition, how much more value will be derived from future requirements if they are not followed by some airlines/ regulators?
How can international passengers protect themselves from unequal levels of safety available in different parts of the world (as not all airlines/ regulators have the same commitment to safety)?
Malaysia and Malaysian airlines are a signatory to ICAO annex 13 and therefor have full responsibility for the accident. They have the authority to request the relevant states/documents being such as from Boeing, any state/country that undertook maintenance, states of fuel supply, engine manufacturers etc. They MAY enlist assistance from the NTSB and other countries CAA or related organisations.
The US must remember they are not the only nation on earth and other countries do have more relevant experience or are more suited to undertaking operations or investigations. It took the UK to investigate and come up with an alternative and the AAIB is currently active in the investigation.
It would be silly not to enlist someone or a team from the NTSB and a FBI rep be called upon and would most likely be requested to do so, especially being a Boeing aircraft and the implications of foul play.
But it the ICAO regulations that govern what the Malaysian government is required to do and the authority invested to request information or assistance.
In such a cosmopolitan world especially international flights you can't tell who's flying the aeroplane. Aside from airline blacklist and searching airline safety records the average Joe has little to go on.
But MH307 is a real cliff-hanger. Malaysian Airlines had until now a safety record of 8 1/2 out of 10 and and a Oneworld alliance.
The US must remember they are not the only nation on earth and other countries do have more relevant experience or are more suited to undertaking operations or investigations. It took the UK to investigate and come up with an alternative and the AAIB is currently active in the investigation.
It would be silly not to enlist someone or a team from the NTSB and a FBI rep be called upon and would most likely be requested to do so, especially being a Boeing aircraft and the implications of foul play.
But it the ICAO regulations that govern what the Malaysian government is required to do and the authority invested to request information or assistance.
In such a cosmopolitan world especially international flights you can't tell who's flying the aeroplane. Aside from airline blacklist and searching airline safety records the average Joe has little to go on.
But MH307 is a real cliff-hanger. Malaysian Airlines had until now a safety record of 8 1/2 out of 10 and and a Oneworld alliance.
ADS-B and NEXTGEN will be deployed in the United States by the end of the decade with some airlines already in partial deployment, and it will be a requirement for all aircraft to be capable by then; that will include foreign carriers flying into this airspace. I figure the Europeans and Canadians will follow suit. Whether any of the others do in their home countries do or not, who knows. Pilots flying into U.S. Airspace will have to be trained and qualified, and those planes will have to be equipped.
Well the Asiana pilots could fly a stick landing, to save their life. They may have lived, but other passengers didn't.
And the transponder (ADS-B) was turned off on the missing Malaysia plane.
So I'm entirely unconvinced that standards can be enforced across borders. Not easily and not without cooperation of the regulator(s) with authority in each respective jurisdiction.
There has to be a way of making regularly audited and reliably accurate safety information available transparently for all airlines across all jurisdictions around the world. Nothing short of complete transparency will bring reliable safety to all.
At least give passengers the information so they can make educated decisions about whom to fly.
And the transponder (ADS-B) was turned off on the missing Malaysia plane.
So I'm entirely unconvinced that standards can be enforced across borders. Not easily and not without cooperation of the regulator(s) with authority in each respective jurisdiction.
There has to be a way of making regularly audited and reliably accurate safety information available transparently for all airlines across all jurisdictions around the world. Nothing short of complete transparency will bring reliable safety to all.
At least give passengers the information so they can make educated decisions about whom to fly.
PhotoFinish, as you have clearly indicated , all this will have to be made part of the 'Law ' . And not until then.
And once it becomes law, ways and means will be naturally devised to make them tamper proof on lines similar to ones used for sealing Black Boxes. But as applicable to ADS-B. Needless to remind, that BB's have undergone tremendous changes over time for various reasons and will continue to change. Same can and may happen to such transponders/transducers !
I am sure post MH 370, the time limit of CVRs (last two hours) is bound to be reviewed. No ?
If ANYONE at this august forum disagrees, please do. BUT keep it in limits of logic and decent language . My humble request (MHR).
And once it becomes law, ways and means will be naturally devised to make them tamper proof on lines similar to ones used for sealing Black Boxes. But as applicable to ADS-B. Needless to remind, that BB's have undergone tremendous changes over time for various reasons and will continue to change. Same can and may happen to such transponders/transducers !
I am sure post MH 370, the time limit of CVRs (last two hours) is bound to be reviewed. No ?
If ANYONE at this august forum disagrees, please do. BUT keep it in limits of logic and decent language . My humble request (MHR).
Well, part 129, as we all found out after Asiana214, only allows a ramp check type equipment inspection. I don't know if it specifically excludes on site audit or we just don't have the money to send auditors on a regular basis. I personally think that any carrier flying into our airspace ought to be subject to identical rules/regs/121 as U.S carriers. There aren't that many foreign 135 carriers coming in but they should be the same. In other words, all should be equal. Your last line would turn the market loose somewhat and let the pax decide, but, it will be found that Asian and Mideast countries are not near as open as the U.S. and will more likely follow the leadership.
Participation of PAX !
It's there every where and always . And we all all know how and to what extent it happens and to what end result.
Don't we ?
So heavens are not likely to fall if it happens .
US leadership ! It started way back during the WW II and continues . Right ?
MHO !
It's there every where and always . And we all all know how and to what extent it happens and to what end result.
Don't we ?
So heavens are not likely to fall if it happens .
US leadership ! It started way back during the WW II and continues . Right ?
MHO !
For their benefit here is a quick ref. about
' Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast ' (ADS-B)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance-broadcast
And interesting reading appears under heading/s
Description
Benefits
ADS-B in the United States
System design considerations of ADS-B
ADS-B technical and regulatory documents
Enjoy the new found info ! If you like.