These days, when reading news about missing Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200, I keep coming across a scenario where pilot might have deliberately turned off the transponder which is used for the communication of flight with ATC.
When there is a possibility that any bad thing can happen when pilot turn off transponder, why would one give the ability of turning off the transponder to a pilot when he/she usually depends on instructions from ATC or flight control. Is there anyway that ATC can turn on transponder back from ground?
Everything including the flight recorder has a power switch or circuit breaker. Electrical devices occasionally malfunction, and you don't want a sparky transponder setting the plane on fire when you can just turn it off and use the other one.
Basically everything that consumes power on a aircraft can potentially cause interference, short-circuts, or otherwise jeopardize the safety of flight and therefore must be switchable. Sometimes the switch is in the form a button, otherwise by a fuse.
There are several particular reasons that the transponder can be turned off.
If the transponder malfunctions, it may cause interruptions to all ATC surveillance in an area. There have been instances in the past that due to a fault in the transponder it was basically acting as a jammer.
In one particular incident it took a while before the aircraft that caused it was identified and after requesting the pilot to switch of the transponder, secondary surveillance was restored.
Another reason is that when the aircraft is at the gate, the transponder is switched of to reduce the amount of radio transmissions. 100 aircraft on the surface of a large airport can produce a massive Radio Frequency noise, which negatively affect radar systems. When taxiing, radar replies are useful for aircraft identification, hence the transponder is switched on at pushback or engine start.
The focus here and in the media on the transponder in relation to hijacks is a red herring. If an aircraft is hijacked, there are way more important things to worry about than an active radar transponder.
The fact that it is turned off means that hijackers already have access to the cockpit.
These days, when reading news about missing Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200, I keep coming across a scenario where pilot might have deliberately turned off the transponder which is used for the communication of flight with ATC. When there is a possibility that any bad thing can happen when pilot turn off transponder, why would one give the ability of turning off the transponder to a pilot when he/she usually depends on instructions from ATC or flight control. Is there anyway that ATC can turn on transponder back from ground?
I know aircraft commonly have rotary actuators to extend and retract the flaps. I am not sure how many but I think I read two per flap on a 747. My question is what is the result if one actuator fails? I don't know if more then one needs to fail in order for a flap not to extend or retract. I am mostly wondering if could cause an aircraft turn-back because somebody told me it could. However that does not seem right to me. I thought the flaps are extended before take-off so that worst case scenario prior to flight is a minor flight delay to replace it. I suppose if it failed just prior
protect the president whilst in the air? I have heard of TFRs for "VIP in the area" reasons — is that for AF1? I am guessing that the aircraft identification is blocked, but wouldn't they still need to have the transponder on for TCAS? Specifically, the Wikipedia page on Air Force One has the following quote: Air traffic controllers gave Air Force One an ominous warning that a passenger jet was close to Air Force One and was unresponsive to calls. "As we got over Gainesville, Fla., we got the word from Jacksonville Center. They said, 'Air Force One you have traffic behind you
I never knew much about airplanes before the tragic incident of Malaysia 370. I have been spending a lot of time on Twitter reading various articles and investigations; in one of the articles I read, they stated that unlike transponders, "black boxes" cannot be turned off. However, each ELT is specifically designed for each aircraft, so it cannot be tampered with. You also cannot turn off the black box, as it runs throughout the flight, recording every 30 to 60 seconds. Is it really impossible to turn off the black boxes from within the plane?
When the transponder on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went off, there was no ALARM. The satellite kept getting pings, and apparently "knew" that the transponder was off. Would it not be a great idea if the Malaysia Airlines got an alarm indication that the transponder was off on one of their planes? The airline could have radioed the pilot and asked what the trouble was. If the pilots did not respond, some jets could have been scrambled to checkout what is going on. The scrambled jets could have followed the airliner for hours and watched them crash in the ocean, when they ran out of fuel. We
and that's why I don't hear reply, however on approach side much bigger distances are heard in my area) Thank you I did verify that indeed the aircraft that I don't hear read back from receives... by the pilots per this question however on more than one occasion I don't hear read back on critical vector info on departure, despite the visual confirmation of instruction (pilot making proper vector and speed adjustments). I tend to notice this with bigger birds (777,747,340), however smaller regional jets almost always promptly read back. Questions: Is there an alternative way of ATC
the pilot decides to wait until 30 NM from the VOR to start down. When they reach that point, are they required to inform ATC before starting the descent or are they considered to have reported the descent... have to inform them when I actually start down? AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request: 1. At all... 100 NM from Wilmington VOR and gets the following clearance: ATC: N1234, cross Wilmington VOR at flight level 240 Pilot: Cross Wilmington VOR at flight level 240, N1234 or ATC: N1234
can have until I'm far enough off the ground to have options if the engine quits or sputters (turn back if high enough, or glide to a suitable spot if not). I'm asking is there an "official procedure" as to when you should perform this power reduction (inches off the ground or 700-1,000 feet), and if so, have there been actual studies that say why one way is better than the other, or is this one...There are two sides I've heard when taking off in a Cessna 182 or other small airplane with a normally aspirated engine driving a constant speed propeller: As soon as your wheels are off
I just finished reading an interesting post where the author suggests that the missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370 could have 'hidden' under the cover of Singapore Airlines flight 68 to fly... from fiction, but I'm wondering: Would there be any hints now in retrospective to suggest they were being followed? Their transponder was off of course, but I'm wondering if for instance there might be some radio interference or static from such as large aircraft behind them? Are there every any issues when refueling aircraft do this sort of thing? What is the resolution of radar? Would one
I recently came across some slides from a flight school teaching, for the initial climb after take-off and for the approach, the strategy of controlling/adjusting RoC/RoD with power Speed with attitude I tried to inform myself a bit on the subject, because I am more familiar with the idea of controlling RoC/RoD with attitude Speed with power I came to understand that this is mostly a difference between VFR vs IFR flight. Is this true? Does the first approach actually have benefits in terms of ability for the pilot to control the plane in VFR flight? If yes, how