Airline black boxes and antiquarian technology

Ed

Philosopher
E
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,658
A plane crashes. The search is on for the black box. Maybe they find it ... maybe they don't. They find it (general rejoiceing) maybe it's damaged ... maybe it isn't. It is not!!! (Huzzas) Maybe it tells you what was going on during the moments before a crash ... maybe it dosen't.

Does this strike anyone else as stupid?

Why are not all planes equipped with sensors on every vital system (and tv in the cockpit and cabin) and why is that information not transmitted real time? It seems to me that the technology is available and cheap.

This is just a bee in my bonnet that buzzes everytime I hear about a crash, and later when I hear "pilot error" with a "reconstruction" of what happened. Seems really retro to me.
 
There are too many flights for this to be workable real time, methinks.

Maybe a system that starts transmitting the data only when the plane has a problem*, or makes an odd maneuver?

*Say, if the TCAS or GPWS or whatever warning system is triggered?

Imagine the anti-government / conspiracy woo-woo's reaction, though.
 
Ed said:
A plane crashes. The search is on for the black box. Maybe they find it ... maybe they don't. They find it (general rejoiceing) maybe it's damaged ... maybe it isn't. It is not!!! (Huzzas) Maybe it tells you what was going on during the moments before a crash ... maybe it dosen't.

Does this strike anyone else as stupid?

Why are not all planes equipped with sensors on every vital system (and tv in the cockpit and cabin) and why is that information not transmitted real time? It seems to me that the technology is available and cheap.

This is just a bee in my bonnet that buzzes everytime I hear about a crash, and later when I hear "pilot error" with a "reconstruction" of what happened. Seems really retro to me.
Click to expand...

I guess such a thing could be done on the larger jets, but it would be pretty tough all the same. First, there are a rather large number of jets flying so one has to take steps so that one data stream will not over-ride others, then somehow setting up continuous data and video telemetry, putting in back-up systems, and of course for the system to be practical, it would have to work anywhere in the world and under all weather conditions.

Sounds simple, eh? Do not worry, I will have it all worked out by lunchtime!

But all kidding aside, the topic of actually filming/video-taping what is going on in the cockpit has been debated for several years and it always gets back to the issue of workplace privacy.

The management likes the idea because if they see the pilot doing something stupid, then they could use the footage to justify firing him.

The pilots union does not like it because such an intrusion could be used by management to keep labor in line.

As a result, a mutually agreeable solution has not been found.
 
LTC8K6 said:
There are too many flights for this to be workable real time, methinks.

Hmmmm...internet communication is via microwave, largely, no? What is the national bitrate for internet related stuff? How many planes are in the air at one time 10,000? 20,000? Call it 100,000. Say 1 megabyte/minute of data. that would be 1 terrabyte/min. Actually seems small.

I mean a million bytes is a lot of stuff. If there are 10 chararacters of significant data that suggests 100,000 measurements/plane/minute.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Ed,

This is a big part of what I do these days, though on the analysis end.

The engineering and deployment costs are not trivial, though as you note it is possible.

Airlines are strapped for money as it is. It's hard enough to sell them analysis packages for after the fact reconstruction.

And, as another poster noted, there is a very large fear among the pilots of 'big brother' watching.

Interestingly, however, there is a big push for attaching sensors all over the plane to monitor accelerations, or, to use another word, vibration. The idea is to provide better predictive maintainance, and thus reduce the lifetime costs of these expensive planes. _That's_ the sort of thing that attracts the attention of the airlines.


edited to add: recall how bad the technology is to manage our (US) airspace is - computers with core memory are still being used :eek:. That is just one safety concern that by far outweighs improved techniques for black box data retrieval. And we see how good a job they have done updating that system.
 
What if these packages just recorded data, much like the black box does, for a limited amount of time - say, one hour - and in case there is an emergency, then the system transmits the data.

That would be very little data traffic coming in - only from planes that are in trouble. And if such data is deleted if is not used - say, after each flight - then it will be no problem with "big brother" supervision.

They would just think of some definition of "trouble" that causes the on-board computer to transmit the data in time, maybe including a possibility for the pilot to turn on transmission manually.
 
Ed, as far as your questions about the amount of data generated, I've seen the number ~30GB of data generated per day by US aviation quoted.

This stuff IS being actively researched and studied. For example, look here. As you can imagine, having telemetry data of all vehicles in a battlefield is of significant interest to the military. But it's going to take time to get there.

As a point of comparison - all flight recorders are not yet retrofitted to incorporate battery backup in case the a/c power fails. Simple retrofits like these take years. The FAA is expanding it's requirements for the # of variables to be recorded, and of course the implementation is going to be rolled out over a number of years. It's a frustrating industry! I'm dealing right now with a tiny program w/ a handful of aircraft where the retrofit is scheduled to happen through 2007.

I've also been on the side of making and installing retrofits. It takes a _long_ time, because of the number of regulations, tests, amount of documentation required, etc. You don't just pop the hood and bolt in a new computer and antenna.
 
This is a subject that I have an interest in, and I've read a number of reasonable books about this. Their summary of the situation seems to be this:

1. The technology to monitor and store at least a flight's worth of data in a "crash proof" box exists today. Technically, it's quite feasible and has been developed to a high standard.

2. The cost of INSTALLING this technology is of great import to revenue-hungry airlines - there is non-revenue-generating down-time, labour costs, technology purchase, etc, etc.

3. Inconsistencies in safety regulatory requirements across national and other boundaries has created total mayhem in aircraft safety fitout requirements. Unscrupulous airline operators will take advantage of this to minimise safety COSTS, usually by just postponing expenses where possible.

Is this how it appears to the people in the industry?
 
While my involvement has mostly been military, while brushing shoulders w/ the civilians, I would say that it is a combination of the reasons that zep quotes along with the huge resistance to this technology by the pilots. So, until the FAA mandates it, you will not see it happen (IMO). However, as I noted in another post, our ability to attach accelometers everywhere makes this technology very attractive - if maintainance costs can be significantly reduced.

caveat: I'm just a C++ code monkey that comes up with technology ideas, and other people tell me why it won't work in the marketplace! So my summary of the situation is admittedly suspect.
 
roger said:

edited to add: recall how bad the technology is to manage our (US) airspace is - computers with core memory are still being used :eek:. That is just one safety concern that by far outweighs improved techniques for black box data retrieval. And we see how good a job they have done updating that system.
Click to expand...

I have mentioned this before. Why can't the US do something so blindingly, obviously, necessary? The most powerful country on earth cannot do something that is so simple. I am just curious. It appears to me to be as good an indicator as any of a massive systems failure in the political process.
 
roger said:
While my involvement has mostly been military, while brushing shoulders w/ the civilians, I would say that it is a combination of the reasons that zep quotes along with the huge resistance to this technology by the pilots. So, until the FAA mandates it, you will not see it happen (IMO).
Click to expand...

Don't say that too loud, our libertarian friends may get upset.
 
a_unique_person said:
I have mentioned this before. Why can't the US do something so blindingly, obviously, necessary? The most powerful country on earth cannot do something that is so simple. I am just curious. It appears to me to be as good an indicator as any of a massive systems failure in the political process.
Click to expand...
I know. It's just appalling. The Washington Post did a very long story a few years ago on this. It covered more of the human side - how there are only a tiny handful of people left who can repair the old equipment, and they are retired, the horrific kludges done when the systems regularly drop out in the DC area, etc. It looks like nothing is going to be done about it until a major disaster happens.

I can't explain it. Other countries have rolled out modern ATC systems. It's entirely feasible technology.
 
The costs of Ed's scheme could be offset by selling access to streaming webcams in the Air Hostess's area...... or even the cockpit for nerds..... Think of the possible plane crash bloopers on cable tv programs....endless planes crashing with laugh tracks.....
 
roger said:
. As you can imagine, having telemetry data of all vehicles in a battlefield is of significant interest to the military. But it's going to take time to get there.
Click to expand...

Im sure the enemy would love the military to have that too!!!
 
The Fool said:
The costs of Ed's scheme could be offset by selling access to streaming webcams in the Air Hostess's area...... or even the cockpit for nerds..... Think of the possible plane crash bloopers on cable tv programs....endless planes crashing with laugh tracks.....
Click to expand...

Product placement in the cockpit!!!

Pilots drinking redbull etc... gives you wings you know....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom