Many will already know the excellent app https://www.flightradar24.com which allows you to watch and follow almost every flight in the world. Flightradar24 is a Swedish internet-based service that shows real-time aircraft flight information on a map. It includes flight tracks, origins and destinations, flight numbers, aircraft types, positions, altitudes, headings and speeds. It aggregates data from multiple sources but, outside of the United States, mostly from crowdsourced information gathering by volunteers with ADS-B receivers. You can watch on your PC or download a mobile app. To see the sheer number of flights in the air, anywhere, at any given moment, on the zoomable scrollable maps is just mind-boggling. Anyway, what prompted this was the news that there is now an ADS-B receiver in the Antarctic, and earlier this afternoon it tracked its first landing at Troll Airfield in Queen Maud Land, Antarctica, a Boeing 737 from Cape Town to Troll.

Many will already know the excellent app https://www.flightradar24.com which allows you to watch and follow almost every flight in the world. Flightradar24 is a Swedish internet-based service that shows real-time aircraft flight information on a map. It includes flight tracks, origins and destinations, flight numbers, aircraft types, positions, altitudes, headings and speeds. It aggregates data from multiple sources but, outside of the United States, mostly from crowdsourced information gathering by volunteers with ADS-B receivers. You can watch on your PC or download a mobile app. To see the sheer number of flights in the air, anywhere, at any given moment, on the zoomable scrollable maps is just mind-boggling. Anyway, what prompted this was the news that there is now an ADS-B receiver in the Antarctic, and earlier this afternoon it tracked its first landing at Troll Airfield in Queen Maud Land, Antarctica, a Boeing 737 from Cape Town to Troll.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"Many will already know the excellent app https://www.flightradar24.com which allows you to watch and follow=#FF0000 almost every flight in the world.'" Sorry but again Your analysis is wrong. All Southern hemispheric Oceanic flights drop of screen after 100 mile of take off and then magically reappear 100 mile before landing. This is due to it being a ground based triangulation Radar and not Satellite. MH-370 ring any bells. =#FF0000Almost is laughable

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"Many will already know the excellent app https://www.flightradar24.com which allows you to watch and follow=#FF0000 almost every flight in the world.'" Sorry but again Your analysis is wrong. All Southern hemispheric Oceanic flights drop of screen after 100 mile of take off and then magically reappear 100 mile before landing. This is due to it being a ground based triangulation Radar and not Satellite. MH-370 ring any bells. =#FF0000Almost is laughable

Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"Sorry but again Your analysis is wrong. All Southern hemispheric Oceanic flights drop of screen after 100 mile of take off and then magically reappear 100 mile before landing. This is due to it being a ground based triangulation Radar and not Satellite. MH-370 ring any bells. =#FF0000Almost is laughable '" My analysis is spot on. Of course in any ground based system, the signal drops off as the plane disappears. (It wouldn't be so bad if the Earth was flat, but hey). The track of this morning's flight was shown until it came out of range of S Africa and was then picked up by the new Antarctic ground station. It isn't magic, the coverage is simply whatever available, either from tracking stations or the various other sources they use, mainly in the US. The primary technology that Flightradar24 use to receive flight information is neither triangulation nor satellite, it is called automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). The basics of how it works are: 1. Aircraft gets its location from a GPS navigation source (satellite) 2. The ADS-B transponder on aircraft transmits signal containing the location (and much more) 3. ADS-B signal is picked up by a receiver connected to Flightradar24 4. Receiver feeds data to Flightradar24 5. Data is shown on www.flightradar24.com Due to the high frequency used by the ADS-B system (1090 MHz) the coverage from each receiver is limited to about 250-450 km (150-250 miles) in all directions. The farther away from the receiver an aircraft is flying, the higher it must fly to be covered by the receiver. (Due to the curve of the globe). The distance limit is why it is very difficult to get ADS-B coverage over the majority of open ocean. However other methods are available, if you are interested then the info is here: https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works As the overwhelming majority of planes in the air are within reach of one of the systems at any given time, then yes, it is true to say that the vast majority can be tracked in pretty much real time - see the screenshot below which shows a number of planes crossing the Atlantic.

Quote FLAT STANLEY="FLAT STANLEY"Sorry but again Your analysis is wrong. All Southern hemispheric Oceanic flights drop of screen after 100 mile of take off and then magically reappear 100 mile before landing. This is due to it being a ground based triangulation Radar and not Satellite. MH-370 ring any bells. =#FF0000Almost is laughable '" My analysis is spot on. Of course in any ground based system, the signal drops off as the plane disappears. (It wouldn't be so bad if the Earth was flat, but hey). The track of this morning's flight was shown until it came out of range of S Africa and was then picked up by the new Antarctic ground station. It isn't magic, the coverage is simply whatever available, either from tracking stations or the various other sources they use, mainly in the US. The primary technology that Flightradar24 use to receive flight information is neither triangulation nor satellite, it is called automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). The basics of how it works are: 1. Aircraft gets its location from a GPS navigation source (satellite) 2. The ADS-B transponder on aircraft transmits signal containing the location (and much more) 3. ADS-B signal is picked up by a receiver connected to Flightradar24 4. Receiver feeds data to Flightradar24 5. Data is shown on www.flightradar24.com Due to the high frequency used by the ADS-B system (1090 MHz) the coverage from each receiver is limited to about 250-450 km (150-250 miles) in all directions. The farther away from the receiver an aircraft is flying, the higher it must fly to be covered by the receiver. (Due to the curve of the globe). The distance limit is why it is very difficult to get ADS-B coverage over the majority of open ocean. However other methods are available, if you are interested then the info is here: https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works As the overwhelming majority of planes in the air are within reach of one of the systems at any given time, then yes, it is true to say that the vast majority can be tracked in pretty much real time - see the screenshot below which shows a number of planes crossing the Atlantic.

You're wrong again i'm afraid. I like your tactical nous by the way changing the subject thread in mid flow.



Right flight radars all belong to the same vendor. Meaning all flight/plane sites feed from one source. I have three Live flight radar screens open and there's not one southern hemispheric mid ocean flight between Australia, South America, and South Africa. Hmmm Fishy.



Firstly Planes do not have a Satellite feed MH-370 is bonafide proof of this.



Secondly you've contacted a copy and paste fetish, the picture you've supplied is a Northern hemispheric flight from Amsterdam all of these Northern hemisphere flights are tracked its southern hemisphere to Southern hemisphere which magically disappear.



Any flight route can be programmed into your own system. Simples

If you want to claim I'm "wrong", give us a clue about what?



Who said planes "have a satellite feed"? I simply explained that they get GPS data. Like I can. Or you.



Last, nothing "magically disappears", as I already explained if no data is picked up from the aircraft then simply there is nothing to display, it is simply out of range. Being out of range isn't a hard concept. Why do you suggest they WOULDN'T go out of range would be the question. They are not magic, and can only pick up signals from within the range I told you, on the frequency I told you, so what is hard for you to understand?

Where? The Bermuda Triangle? Narnia?

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.

The highlighted quote above contradicts your comment below:





All Northern hemisphere flights are tracked yeah.So why aren't these Southern hemisphere flights tracked. 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.



So we know GPS is essentially Ground Based Positioning triangulation after you arguing it was Satellite in another thread, And the Americans invented and control all the these systems. Now the Americans don't do anything small, so going by your reasoning 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.

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).





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.





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?





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.





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.







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.





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.









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.

It really is a shame you cannot debate without personal infantile cranial insults. You lost the debate in your first sentence. The subject does interest me grossly as i've researched the Globular fallacies and deficiencies of the Southern Hemisphere flights. MH-370 Obliterate's your whole copy and paste concept Simples. There is nothing you can tell me about this topic





Again MH-370 Obliterates your concept hahahaha Heard you loud and clear...

I speak only the truth







You might actually believe that. Only a nutty person would believe that, and so QED.



Actually though it is just your standard defence mechanism - when you have no answer to a host of intelligent and specific points, just bluster your way out.



You never have any answer. To the most reasoned point. You have no wish at all to debate. So you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "nah nah nah".



It is no doubt irritating for you that I continually underline and demonstrate that you have nothing, except your bullcrap and bluster, and to that extent (if it really is true that you are out of the thread) my work is done.

Really: In Riddles you mean: Look Below.





Hahaha you speak in Riddles of contradiction

Is that really the best you've got? Really?

[/i

Hahaha you're getting all tangled up in your Copy and paste frenzy. Make your mind up. I don't need to prove you're wrong, you do a Grand job doing it yourself. Please carry on



As my research has indicated there are a plethora of platforms that can mimic satellite utility, so lets review.

=#BF00001. Land-based technologies. Loran (long range navigation)=#FF0000. 2. GPS uses Cell-tower triangulation not Satellites

=#FF00003. High Altitude Airships (HAA)=#BF0000 4. High Altitude Platforms (HAP)

=#FF00005. Lighter-than-air vehicles (LAV) =#FF00406. High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE)

=#BF00007. High Altitude Long Operation (HALO) =#FF00408. StratSat

=#FF00009. Airborne Relay Communication (ARC)=#FF0000 10. HeliPlat which connects to the HeliNet System

=#FF000011. High Altitude Shuttle System (HASS)=#FF0000 12. Small Balloon Systems (SBS)

=#FF000013. Nano Balloon Systems (NBS)=#BF0000 14. Google Loon System

=#FF000015. Stratospheric Platform Systems (SPS)=#FF0000 16. High Altitude Long Endurance Demonstrator (HALE-D)

=#FF000017 Undersea Cable=#FF0000 18. DARPA Integrated Sensor is Structure or ISIS



So as you see there are at least 18 platforms that can be used independently, in tandem or groups to provide all the services that satellites supposedly provide. The most glaring aspect of satellite fakery is cost. All 18 platforms I've mentioned are substantially more cost-efficient than satellites and inherently more reliable. It makes no sense to continually risk hurling satellites into space if more cost-efficient, reliable and readily maintainable terrestrial systems already exist, which they do, the dubious existence of satellites is even more definitive since NASA cannot furnish a single actual photo or video footage of real satellites.



Which is more probable. That satellites exist but NASA seems incapable of confirming their existence or simply they do not exist at all? =#BF0000Occam's Razor makes it simple, they don't exist at all.

I await the next batch of cranial insults and the tongue twisted comedy

Poor Stanley. You, of all people, praying Occam in aid must be one of the most ironic and amusing things I've read in a long while. You are to Occam what Toulouse Lautrec was to pole-vaulting. There are over 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit around the Earth, and over 2,500 more which no longer function. Careful watch is also kept on as many as possible of the tens of thousands of pieces of space junk/debris as these could pose a threat to live satellites and also for warning when larger debris is going to re-enter the atmosphere. On a clear night, any short spell of sky watching will enable you to see several of these satellites passing overhead. If you have the right app, you can easily identify them. There are a number of independent bits of software for you to identify track etc as many satellites as you want, for example www.satflare.com I would highly recommend stuffin.space/ Despite the tracking, given the sheer volume of metal whizzing around the globe, collisions are inevitable, and on 11 February 2009 Russia's Cosmos 2251 satellite collided with one of the network of 66 Iridium satellites at 0455 GMT over Siberia at an altitude of 490 miles (790 km). This would have been much less inconvenient for all concerned had the satellites not actually existed. Your convoluted net of cellphone masts etc and millions of balloons is obvious plain bollox given that 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and doesn't have either masts or tethered balloons or any of the other weird and wonderful figments of your mentors' imagination, which strangely no human eyes have ever seen, despite them running the entire world "satellite based" technology. Yet GPS works just as well in mid-Pacific or at the Poles as it does in Leeds. You are a special kind of gullible. "NASA incapable of confirming the existence of satellites"? That is one of your best ones yet. Any reasonably educated human on the planet can within seconds confirm the existence of any of the thousands of satellites as suggested above. And you can watch them with your own eyes when they are due to pass across. One of them - the International Space Station - often has a live feed and you can watch it's track around the globe all day and all night and when available, a live feed from its cameras. This afternoon as I posted earlier you can even watch Tim Peake's live spacewalk. If you are up at 05:46 in the morning, and the sky is reasonably clear, here's a good one for you. The ISS will emerge from Earth's shadow quite high in the South, and you can watch it until it disappears over the eastern horizon. A decent pair of binoculars and you will even me able to make out its shape. It will be exactly where the orbit prediction software in various apps and programs predicts it will be. Which enables astronomers/amateur photographers on Earth to take gazillions of photographs of it as it makes its way. For example, google "ISS crossing sun". Any number of photographers have indpendently taken images and here is a tiny sample of that search Similarly images of ISS crossing the moon - here is just one, but a very nice one, taken not by NASA or any science organisation, just an independent photographer called Dylan O'Donnell You could do it too. If it did not exist - how is any of this this possible?

Poor Stanley. You, of all people, praying Occam in aid must be one of the most ironic and amusing things I've read in a long while. You are to Occam what Toulouse Lautrec was to pole-vaulting. There are over 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit around the Earth, and over 2,500 more which no longer function. Careful watch is also kept on as many as possible of the tens of thousands of pieces of space junk/debris as these could pose a threat to live satellites and also for warning when larger debris is going to re-enter the atmosphere. On a clear night, any short spell of sky watching will enable you to see several of these satellites passing overhead. If you have the right app, you can easily identify them. There are a number of independent bits of software for you to identify track etc as many satellites as you want, for example www.satflare.com I would highly recommend stuffin.space/ Despite the tracking, given the sheer volume of metal whizzing around the globe, collisions are inevitable, and on 11 February 2009 Russia's Cosmos 2251 satellite collided with one of the network of 66 Iridium satellites at 0455 GMT over Siberia at an altitude of 490 miles (790 km). This would have been much less inconvenient for all concerned had the satellites not actually existed. Your convoluted net of cellphone masts etc and millions of balloons is obvious plain bollox given that 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and doesn't have either masts or tethered balloons or any of the other weird and wonderful figments of your mentors' imagination, which strangely no human eyes have ever seen, despite them running the entire world "satellite based" technology. Yet GPS works just as well in mid-Pacific or at the Poles as it does in Leeds. You are a special kind of gullible. "NASA incapable of confirming the existence of satellites"? That is one of your best ones yet. Any reasonably educated human on the planet can within seconds confirm the existence of any of the thousands of satellites as suggested above. And you can watch them with your own eyes when they are due to pass across. One of them - the International Space Station - often has a live feed and you can watch it's track around the globe all day and all night and when available, a live feed from its cameras. This afternoon as I posted earlier you can even watch Tim Peake's live spacewalk. If you are up at 05:46 in the morning, and the sky is reasonably clear, here's a good one for you. The ISS will emerge from Earth's shadow quite high in the South, and you can watch it until it disappears over the eastern horizon. A decent pair of binoculars and you will even me able to make out its shape. It will be exactly where the orbit prediction software in various apps and programs predicts it will be. Which enables astronomers/amateur photographers on Earth to take gazillions of photographs of it as it makes its way. For example, google "ISS crossing sun". Any number of photographers have indpendently taken images and here is a tiny sample of that search Similarly images of ISS crossing the moon - here is just one, but a very nice one, taken not by NASA or any science organisation, just an independent photographer called Dylan O'Donnell You could do it too. If it did not exist - how is any of this this possible?