I am sort of replying to nutty Stan, but more in general, as I think the general topic of tracking aircraft around the globe is fascinating, and the information may interest a wider audience. (In fact, I doubt it will interest Stan at all, as his mind is firmly shut, but still).
Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"I think you're copy and pasting to much information and getting ahead of yourself in angst of attempting to prove me wrong, thats the way you're coming across anyway. Chill out. '"
One of us gets all excited and giddy whenever posting, usually going off into rants and abuse, and it ain't me
Pretty much veryone already knows 100% that you are wrong, and thinks you're nuts. There would be no point in trying to "prove" you are wrong, it would be as fruitful and pointless as trying to "prove" today is Thursday in the UK. All I'm doing is helpfully providing information, politely answering your less mad questions, and in a way guiding you towards the light, but I do know you have no wish to see it.
Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"The highlighted quote above contradicts your comment below:'"
In what way? A plane gets its position via GPS same as you can in your car. Unless you believe that the satellite is also tracking your car, it isn't a hard concept. The satellite is not tracking your car. It is giving out its own time and position and your GPS software is calculating the rest.
You don't actually think your car GPS beams information back to the satellite, do you?
Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"All Northern hemisphere flights are tracked yeah.'"
No. information is exchanged (ie actively), when possible. The plane is not tracked (passively) unless it is in range of tracking equipment, ie radar. it could be, but it isn't.
You clearly have no insight into the complexity of ATC (air traffic control) or the obstacles in receiving and exchanging data over vast expanses of ocean. Active communications from aircraft are to a considerable extent possible using HF (High frequency) radio, and Controller–Pilot Data Link Communication (CPDLC) using a data link to exchange information with air traffic control. If you are interested, google it. Then look up ACARS, FANS-1/A, ATN/CPDLC.
But what you need to understand is that while a plane's pilot knows where he is, because he gets that info from GPS,
planes are not equipped to relay that information on to anywhere else. Ground controllers rely on active verbal broadcasts, data transmissions or automated, or passive radar. If the plane doesn't broadcast (MH370 switched off its transponder) then effectively once off the radar, it is invisible, save for the data pings it may then periodically send to satellites using ACARS.
You could Google ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast) - which over maybe the next 10 years will replace radar as the main plane location system for airports. To some extent this is already in use, the plane works out its position using GPS and then relays data to the ground, and to other planes, but ADS-B coverage still won't extend over the world's oceans, and the data won't be relayed back via satellite.
ACARS is the system that so far has provided the most clues to MH370. This is a data information system. The plane does periodically send a "ping" to satellites giving technical information about the plane's systems and any issues. The idea is to forewarn the airline of any maintenance work that might be needed at the next stop. But the ACARS ping again does not include any information about the aircraft's position - the track had to be worked out by triangulation from the information recorded by satellite.
Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"So why aren't these Southern hemisphere flights tracked. '"
The problem of constant plane position monitoring is not one of technology, but one of cost. A plane COULD be constantly tracked, over land, oceans, or whatever, if it was equipped (as it could be) to constantly upload updates to the satellite network. The reason this is not done is, simply, expense. the sheer volume of data that would constantly be being uploaded by all the planes in all the world to the satellite network would be ruinously expensive, and so is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Also, what would be the point? Once a plane is out of range of land, there would be 99.99999% of the time little or no advantage in having a satellite fix on it as it would add nothing ATC needed to know that current systems don't already provide.
Had MH370 had such a system, would it have solved the mystery? Probably not - since it seems the pilot/s switched off all the other comms systems, and so it can be presumed they would have switched off or disabled that one, too.
Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"Southern Hemispheric flights disappear off screen not because there's NO triangulation radar system, its because they don't want the real genuine flight route exposing due to the true Geographical mapping errors of the globe. I've heavily researched this topic. Thats why Southern hemispheric flights trackers are switched off not because there's less radar coverage.'"
Stan -
you said "globe"! Well done you!!
Was it me that convinced you the Earth's not flat? I do hope it was!
So, how do you explain the latest tracking station in Antarctica that I initially highlighted in this thread? This does indeed do exactly that which you claim can't be done, and which you claim there is a conspiracy not to do - it tracks planes incoming to land in that part of Antarctica. It puts them up on screen as soon as they signals are received. It could not do this if the planes switched them off. there was a regular flight from cape Town to Troll, and anyone who wanted to follow it could see it take off live from Cape Town and watch it on Flightradar24 as it merrily went on its way - then pick up its flight as soon as it came within range of the new tracking station, and 'watch' it land.
Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"So we know GPS is essentially Ground Based Positioning triangulation after you arguing it was Satellite in another thread, '"
You do come up with idiotic statements, Stan. GPS is entirely based on SATELLITES which constantly broadcast o the ground. The network is set up so that wherever on the globe you are, a minimum of 3 or 4 satellites of the GPS network should be in line of sight. Each satellite constantly transmits data giving its position and the current time on the satellite's clock at regular intervals. These signals are picked up by any GPS receiver, which calculates how far away each satellite is, based on how long it took for the messages to arrive (the information states what time the signal was broadcast; your GPS knows the time now; it then simple deducts one from the other, and the distance that light travels in the resulting fraction of a second is the precise distance to that satellite).
Once it has information on how far away at least three satellites are, your GPS receiver can pinpoint your location, as there is only one place on the globe where all three of the measured distances intersect.
If you have info from 4 or more satellites, you can also work out your altitude.
Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"...they forgot to triangulate the Four Southern Oceans, i doubt this very much your reasoning is all frenzied copy and paste, and not your own true self opinion which is folly.'"
No, the satellites do cover the globe. All of it. Even the southern oceans. Even the north and south poles. Every inch of the surface of the globe. Do I make myself clear?
Also, while it is sometimes helpful to cut and paste, in general I either don't, or if I do I usually quote it to make it clear. There is nothing cut n pasted in this post.
