>>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21373771
>>>
>>>Basically a passive-radar system, same idea as passive sonar on submarines using ambient noise. But, potentially using it for ATC is interesting.
>>
>>
>>In a disaster, TV stations likely will be off the air before aircraft are out of it. But at least people on the airliners will be able to be twits on the way down.
>
>Wouldn't that depend on the type of the disaster? If it was an enemy attack then existing radar ground stations (of which there are comparatively few) would be most likely to be disabled. In this country at least, there is a TV relay mast about every 30 miles - most of those, regardless of the disaster, would be more likely to remain functional.

Until their fuel supplies ran out.

In case of enemy attack, most electronics will be fried (enhanced EMP bursts) and this country, being as dependant as it is to high tech, will simply fail.

>
>Also, loss of radar contact is not the end of the world. Most position reporting is done via transponders anyway.

Transponders reply to Radar.

>
>I'd also hazard a guess that the TV mast approach would also catch low flying aircraft operating below the normal radar horizon.

Not nearly as well as conventional (especially military) radar. Frequency is much too low.

>
>>Who needs safety when we can tweet?
>>
>>Kinda like the deal Public Safety got about 10 years ago in this country where they were given a "deal" where cellular carriers would get a lot of public safety spectrum and the carriers were supposed to cover the costs to move public safety to new spectrum.
>>
>>Odd how the police seem to be stuck using cell phones for a lot of their work now. That will cost lives in a disaster. But hey - people have cooler cell phones now.