Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MH370 - Lessons Learned, Changes In Civil Aviation  
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31857 times:

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what changes need to happen in civil aviation so that accidents like MH370 do not happen in the future, -or- if they do happen, what changes need to happen so the response is better than what we are currently witnessing. We do not know the outcome of this accident but we have plenty of information to understand where deficiencies lie. I will suggest a few:

Communication
>Black Boxes that communicate in real time with the ground giving us data on the aircraft without the physical black box
>ATC with better radios with more range and less interference allowing for easier communication with pilots
>Satellite phones
>Rules that force airlines to report aircraft missing sooner, communicate with effected next of kin sooner
>Aircraft wifi improvements

Radar / Knowing Where the Aircraft is
>GPS in the cockpit
>Better ATC Radar so missing aircraft are acknowledged sooner, vitals are more accurate, and fewer areas of poor radar coverage.
>Better radar that allows aircraft to know where they are relative to other aircraft

Security
>Airport security with better access to no-fly lists, passport information, and a oversight to make sure it is used properly

Search and Rescue
>Quicker initiation of S&R operations
>Better equipment located in the right places

Improvements to the aircraft itself outside of the cockpit may become more of topic once we know what happened but certainly can be discussed. Improvements to pilot training will inevitably be a component as well but I do not think we have enough to go on there.

Here is a solid article on some of the dated cockpit technologies:
http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/g...he-60s-a-reflection-on-mh-370.html

This is not a thread about the accident itself as there is a dedicated thread for that. This thread is about how the industry can improve from here.

tortugamon

[Edited 2014-03-09 19:22:58]

312 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31906 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what changes need to happen in civil aviation so that accidents like MH370 do not happen in the future,

Hmm... do you know what caused this crash yet?

I mean, they haven't even found the plane yet. We might actually find the plane exactly where all the information said it would likely be. This thread is probably premature.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinekd5mdk From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31824 times:

Improvements in aircraft tracking will not prevent an aircraft from falling out of the sky, exploding or whatever else caused the crash. But knowing the location of all aircraft to within 1km or less in all 3 dimensions at all times would make a huge difference in SAR procedures.

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31797 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
I mean, they haven't even found the plane yet. We might actually find the plane exactly where all the information said it would likely be. This thread is probably premature.

This, my friends, is an attitude that inhibits societal progress. You do not need to know what caused to crash to see what issues cropped up during the investigation. Clearly, there are problems with the ability to locate this aircraft.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
The purpose of this thread is to discuss what changes need to happen in civil aviation so that accidents like MH370 do not happen in the future,

One observation with many of your items is that they are de rigueur in many regions.

[Edited 2014-03-09 19:33:25]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineJulian773 From Australia, joined Aug 2009, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31771 times:

This thread is probably premature.

Agreed. Right now the main focus is on locating and recovering the aircraft and passengers.


User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31684 times:

Whilst some lessons, (particularly physical changes to aircraft) are too early to call, I think it is probably fair to say that more stringent passport control is a lesson learnt.

I am all for placing microchips in people's heads. I am so sick of filling out immigration forms.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31572 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
This, my friends, is an attitude that inhibits societal progress.

Baloney.

First off, what is the rush to fix the investigatory process when it hasn't even been shown what has failed in the investigatory process yet? I'm all for speculation, but declaring items on the fix list is a whole different animal. We simply do not have any information to know what went wrong (if it even did go wrong) to address it for the future.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31527 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
We simply do not have any information to know what went wrong (if it even did go wrong) to address it for the future.

You don't have to know what went wrong in this case to have ideas about what to improve. There are plenty of recent cases (AF447, for starters, but there are many others) where the investigation has provided sufficient information that recommendations can be made.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineSEA From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31504 times:

How can you know what to change when we don't know what went wrong? This thread makes more sense months later but not now.

User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31523 times:

That is a terrible article you linked to. I'd bet my paycheck that the 777 involved had:

a)GPS
b)SATCOM and CPDLC with ADS-C


Not sure what you mean by wifi improvements, wi-fi is just a way to connect to the LAN and improving that wouldn't really do anything as there isn't any pipe to the aircraft that is higher speed than what 802.11 can already do. Better radar letting aircraft know where they are in relation to each other? What do you mean by this and what would be the point? Wouldn't TCAS suffice for now and with ADS-B coming online and CDTI will be better than any radar could be. As far as "streaming" black boxes, the amount of data that would be coming off the aircraft and the infrastructure to receive that data would be enormous, and a lot of that information would be extemporaneous to anything other than a crash investigation where as ACARS data already provides a lot of relevant information that is dual purpose.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31511 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
Hmm... do you know what caused this crash yet?
Quoting Julian773 (Reply 4):
This thread is probably premature.

No it's not. We do know that we don't know where that aircraft is, almost 2 days after it's disappearance.

That could have been different with some forethought. Technology is pretty advanced nowadays.

That's not the first time such a thing happens - I'm thinking about that poor Air France flight that disappeared over the Atlantic.

[Edited 2014-03-09 19:48:59]


rolf
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31467 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
You don't have to know what went wrong in this case to have ideas about what to improve. There are plenty of recent cases (AF447, for starters, but there are many others) where the investigation has provided sufficient information that recommendations can be made.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we don't even know how the investigation is going, where it is going right, and where it is going wrong, because we have not found the plane yet. We may be exactly on the right path to finding the plane right now, but if we were to assume that because we haven't found the plane then we've failed, we could propose changing from the plan that would eventually work to a plan that will eventually fail.

You're issuing grades before the students have completed the assignments, in other words.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineillinicmi From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31435 times:

For those who think this thread is premature, I invite you to point out the glowing successes of this search and rescue operation so far. Some of us have clearly missed them.

I don't think the investigation needs to be complete in order to discuss the problems. I'd say 48 hours with no hint of where she went is something of a problem.

No, I don't expect miracles. Just pointing out that room exists for improvement. Hence, the OP's reason for this thread.


User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31397 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
Security
>Airport security with better access to no-fly lists, passport information, and a oversight to make sure it is used properly

Interpol makes its lost/stolen passport database available to all member countries now, most just do not use it.
The three main users are the USA, UK, and UAE. Others could easily follow suit.



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31400 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
This, my friends, is an attitude that inhibits societal progress. You do not need to know what caused to crash to see what issues cropped up during the investigation. Clearly, there are problems with the ability to locate this aircraft.

Rubbish.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 7):
You don't have to know what went wrong in this case to have ideas about what to improve.

Yes, you do.

We can't know what to improve or what lessons to learn until we know what went wrong. This is putting the cart before the horse.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31397 times:

Quoting illinicmi (Reply 12):

For those who think this thread is premature, I invite you to point out the glowing successes of this search and rescue operation so far. Some of us have clearly missed them.

Then how about throwing out some feasible solutions instead of defending the thread?



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13074 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31394 times:

No, I don't think some of the ideas in the initial post are premature to consider, especially as to the passport issues and security at some airports.
As to improving tracking and transmission in real time of the status of the status of operational aircraft, there could be serious technical issues as well as costs almost all airlines are not going to be interested to spending on for very rare occurrences.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25132 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31363 times:

Quoting SEA (Reply 8):
How can you know what to change when we don't know what went wrong? This thread makes more sense months later but not now.

I agree. Best to wait until there's at least some indication of what happened. For example, one topic mentioned was improving search and rescue. We have no idea whether there's any need for improvement yet. Just because the aircraft hasn't yet been sighted doesn't mean there's a SAR problem. And many countries, especially developing countries in Asia/Africa etc. such as several on the route of this flight, don't have the resources to spend millions on a fleet of SAR aircraft and ships etc, especially for an event like this that may never happen again.


User currently offlineMarkam From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 441 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31371 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Black Boxes that communicate in real time with the ground giving us data on the aircraft without the physical black box

There is an interesting article on The Guardian about this issue: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box


User currently offlineWeb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How about a streaming gps/low jack system. It would consistently transmit the airplane location, for the sole purpose of locating aircraft, not ATC service. It would help if airplanes were lost over remote areas, or if an airplane is stolen.

Speaking of stolen planes, anyone find the AA 727 yet?

[Edited 2014-03-09 19:59:14]


Boiler Up!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31293 times:

Quoting illinicmi (Reply 12):
For those who think this thread is premature, I invite you to point out the glowing successes of this search and rescue operation so far.

It is not time yet to point out the successes or failures. Haste does not make science. I'll say it again, you're issuing grades before the students have completed the assignments.

This thread may make a whole lot more sense a month from now or a year from now that it does currently. You know, after you actually know where you failed. Don't believe me? I'll bow out and let this discussion unfold. Then we'll bring it back up in 3 months and a year and see what new information we find that shows where what we thought was a failure turned out not to be a failure.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31227 times:

If you don't think the thread is a good idea, then don't post in it. It'll help the Signal:Noise ratio. As it is, you're just making things worse.

Conclusions can be drawn from previous instances. I think even if real time FDR for all data isn't feasible, they could certainly accommodate the key parameters.

We also need better radar in outlying areas.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31224 times:

Why don't airliners have some kind of battery-operated, crash-proof, powerful transmitter attached to the FDR, which would broadcast their position, along with a special emergency code, as soon as the FDR stops receiving power, or when a high G deceleration, or any other sign of a crash is detected?

I know the FDR and (or?) CVR have some kind of (weak?) transmitter which helps locating them, and which keeps transmitting for a while, but that doesn't seem to be effective in many cases where the location of the wreck is not known.

An emergency transmitter as described would not need to transmit for a long period of time, just for long enough to get the location out there, into ADS or a similar system.

If this aircraft was equipped with ADS, why would it be so hard to find the wreckage? Same thing for AF447.

In addition to helping to find the wreckage, this would also kick off the search an rescue operations much sooner.

[Edited 2014-03-09 20:05:55]


rolf
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31131 times:

Most of your post reads like the recommendations from BEA in the Air France 447 reports.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
Communication
>Black Boxes that communicate in real time with the ground giving us data on the aircraft without the physical black box

Not possible with current technology. However several groups / companies are working on burst transmissions under certain trigger events. And more real-time data reporting. There are of course issues with costs (up to $100K per aircraft is best guess along with data transmission costs, staffing to monitor the data, etc.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>ATC with better radios with more range and less interference allowing for easier communication with pilots

Do you know of a technology that the communications industry hasn't identified? The radios are the best possible given the coverage requirements and cost factors. Plus once an aircraft gets out of VHF range - HF is the best current technology.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Satellite phones

Satellite phones take time and effort to establish a connection. Time the pilots in an aircraft with problems don't usually have. The technology and reliability in aircraft is about equal to today's HF communication.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Rules that force airlines to report aircraft missing sooner

I haven't seen a timeline on this aircraft yet - but it appears that the airline and government authorities were very aware of the loss of communication, and reacted quickly. This was a big issue with AF447. BEA and the working groups proposed many changes to the system. So far it appears that those changes were implemented in this instance. You do realize that dozens to a few hundred aircraft lose communication or data contact with their company every day. For many technical reasons. Most of the time communication is quickly restored. Setting a much shorter alert period is going to create a false report of a missing aircraft almost every day.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
communicate with effected next of kin sooner

How would you do that? Require every airline passenger to fill out a NOK notification form for every flight. I've had some experience with NOK notifications while in the US Navy.

I'd love to hear you ideas on hour to (1) identify the NOK earlier, (2) confirming notification, (3) dealing with 'family' in multiple locations, (4) verifying that all NOK have been notified before releasing names.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Aircraft wifi improvements

How would this help anything? Other than taking power away from the other aircraft systems in an emergency, and using up bandwidth needed for wifi that would be better used to send aircraft data.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>GPS in the cockpit

Already in aircraft.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Better ATC Radar so missing aircraft are acknowledged sooner, vitals are more accurate,

There are many reasons an aircraft transponder will fail. There is sufficient data available in areas of good radar coverage.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
and fewer areas of poor radar coverage.

There really isn't a way to fix that problem in the open ocean. Or in mountainous areas like the western United States or Europe at some altitudes.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Better radar that allows aircraft to know where they are relative to other aircraft

Pilots need to be flying their aircraft, not acting as ATC for other aircraft.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Quicker initiation of S&R operations

It's a big ocean, and the authorities respond to many alerts every year which turn out to not be real emergencies. As I said above - this looks like a fairly good response - though I'll withhold judgement until I see a complete timeline.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Better equipment located in the right places

Which equipment would you fund in which places?


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 24, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31079 times:

Most of these things already exist and have for years!

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Black Boxes that communicate in real time with the ground giving us data on the aircraft without the physical black box

Hideously expensive to implement and maintain for very very little benefit. Example AF447. Would this have saved anyone on board? Nope.

Besides, ADS-B already transmits position data every second.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>ATC with better radios with more range and less interference allowing for easier communication with pilots

Already in place for years with datalink.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Satellite phones

Already in place.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Rules that force airlines to report aircraft missing sooner, communicate with effected next of kin sooner

There are rules already.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Aircraft wifi improvements

I don't see how this is relevant.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>GPS in the cockpit

Already in place for years.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Better ATC Radar so missing aircraft are acknowledged sooner, vitals are more accurate, and fewer areas of poor radar coverage.

Very expensive for very little benefit. Besides, ADS-B already transmits position data every second in most areas.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Better radar that allows aircraft to know where they are relative to other aircraft

Already in place with TCAS II.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Airport security with better access to no-fly lists, passport information, and a oversight to make sure it is used properly

This can certainly be improved, but it will take time as it is a complex task.

Quoting rolfen (Reply 22):

Why don't airliners have some kind of battery-operated, crash-proof, powerful transmitter attached to the FDR, which would broadcast their position, along with a special emergency code, as soon as the FDR stops receiving power, or when a high G deceleration, or any other sign of a crash is detected?

Already in place today on all DFDR and CVR boxes. The problem is that if you dunk a radio even 50 meters under water, the range is cut down drastically. Stronger transmitters are possible, but that adds a lot of weight given you need a stronger battery.

Quoting rolfen (Reply 22):
If this aircraft was equipped with ADS, why would it be so hard to find the wreckage? Same thing for AF447.

Simple answer: Because the ocean is large and the plane is small.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31573 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
Quoting rolfen (Reply 22):
If this aircraft was equipped with ADS, why would it be so hard to find the wreckage? Same thing for AF447.

Simple answer: Because the ocean is large and the plane is small.

What do you mean? I understand that ADS broadcasts position periodically. If you have a position and a radius, how much do you have to search?

Your simple answer makes no sense. The size of the ocean is irrelevant here. We're not searching the whole ocean.

[Edited 2014-03-09 20:23:30]


rolf
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 26, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31434 times:

I'll add that while it is admirable to make aviation safer, there is always a compromise. There are plenty of investments to be made in making aviation safer, but they all come at a cost. Feasible does not mean the same as economically defensible. Aviation is already safer than ever, and safer than pretty much any other form of transport. Certainly orders of magnitude safer than driving. Improvements will keep happening, but I daresay there seems to be no need for dramatic changes right now.

Also, a lot of the things quoted here are all well and good, but none of them would save anyone's life in an AF447 type scenario.

Quoting rolfen (Reply 25):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
Quoting rolfen (Reply 22):
If this aircraft was equipped with ADS, why would it be so hard to find the wreckage? Same thing for AF447.

Simple answer: Because the ocean is large and the plane is small.

What do you mean? I understand that ADS broadcasts position periodically. If you have a position and a radius, how much do you have to search?

Your simple answer makes no sense. The size of the ocean is irrelevant here. We're not searching the whole ocean.

Ask anyone who works in search and rescue and they'll tell you finding stuff is not that easy.

Also you are now making assumptions about ADS broadcasts. Is it really the last position? How can we know? It is a place to start of course.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rolfen (Reply 25):
What do you mean? I understand that ADS broadcasts position periodically. If you have a position and a radius, how much do you have to search?

Now which radius are you referring to? Range of a/c at time of disappearance? That's a pretty big area...



Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31578 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 21):
Conclusions can be drawn from previous instances. I think even if real time FDR for all data isn't feasible, they could certainly accommodate the key parameters.

This already exists in many aircraft however there has to be something wrong for it to broadcast. ACARS can squirt out MX data. As far as key parameters what is it going to broadcast?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Satellite phones take time and effort to establish a connection. Time the pilots in an aircraft with problems don't usually have. The technology and reliability in aircraft is about equal to today's HF communication.

Satcom is much more advanced than HF as well as more reliable. With Iridium you can make a call anywhere anytime with quality that is comparable to a long distance phone call With Inmarsat the coverage is near globe as well.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
Besides, ADS-B already transmits position data every second.

ADS-B broadcasts over UHF so there needs to be something to receive it. Oceanic FANS uses ADS-C which broadcasts over Satellite.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 29, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31529 times:

Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 27):
Quoting rolfen (Reply 25):
What do you mean? I understand that ADS broadcasts position periodically. If you have a position and a radius, how much do you have to search?

Now which radius are you referring to? Range of a/c at time of disappearance? That's a pretty big area...

Quite.

Assuming that the initial position is correct, a hypothetical airliner gliding from 35k feet has a range in excess of 150km. That's about 17500 square kilometers as a bare minimum search area. Think of it this way: You now have to search about three and a half million football fields, any one of which could swallow an entire airliner. At a minimum.*

Needle. Haystack.

* Apologies for any possible maths screwups.

[Edited 2014-03-09 20:39:39]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 30, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31499 times:

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 28):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
Besides, ADS-B already transmits position data every second.

ADS-B broadcasts over UHF so there needs to be something to receive it. Oceanic FANS uses ADS-C which broadcasts over Satellite.

If memory serves, a poster in the big thread said it is satcom in this area.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31414 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 29):
Quite.

Assuming that the initial position is correct, a hypothetical airliner gliding from 35k feet has a range in excess of 150km. That's about 17500 square kilometers as a bare minimum search area. Think of it this way: You now have to search about three and a half million football fields, any one of which could swallow an entire airliner. At a minimum.

Needle. Haystack.

ADS position data also contains uncompensated latency so in addition to what you mentioned before the position data is broadcast off of the airplane it already contains a slight inaccuracy. Then their is the latency factor going up to and then back down from the satellite (Inmarsat Satellites are bent pipe repeaters at an altitude of 22K miles) it is then received by a service provider (SITA or ARINC) and then to the control station. That adds uncertainty to the equation.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 31405 times:

Just as another example of how difficult it can be to find an aircraft a cessna crashed at BNA and wasn't found for 6 hours due to fog as it burned on the field.


Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7401 posts, RR: 17
Reply 33, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31346 times:

I think there should be camera links to the ground to the cockpit at all time. If this is indeed a cockpit breach, or even if its pilot error, we would know immediately.


次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineMesaFlyGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 3033 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31243 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 33):
I think there should be camera links to the ground to the cockpit at all time. If this is indeed a cockpit breach, or even if its pilot error, we would know immediately.

How would they monitor that, though? They would need an unrealistic number of people to monitor every flight in the air. I suppose they could have a button pilot that pilots press when there is a breach, however they may not always have enough time or notice to press it.

I think it is a really cool idea, however I think it would be a bit hard to execute.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31247 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
I mean, they haven't even found the plane yet. We might actually find the plane exactly where all the information said it would likely be.

I think the fact that we don't know where the plane is and what happened to it and it has been three days is enough of a problem to know that we don't want this to happen again. Too many very upset people with no answers and right now this thread is meant to be about how we could have given these people answers quicker nothing more, yet.

Quoting kd5mdk (Reply 2):
Improvements in aircraft tracking will not prevent an aircraft from falling out of the sky, exploding or whatever else caused the crash.

Agreed. We don't have the piece of the puzzle yet. We have others. When that is known I hope we can discuss it here.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 9):
Not sure what you mean by wifi improvements

One of the articles posted mentions how passengers with wifi in the cabin could have access to better weather information then the pilot in the cockpit. This is one example.

Quoting illinicmi (Reply 12):
For those who think this thread is premature, I invite you to point out the glowing successes of this search and rescue operation so far. Some of us have clearly missed them.

I agree.

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 13):
Interpol makes its lost/stolen passport database available to all member countries now, most just do not use it.
The three main users are the USA, UK, and UAE. Others could easily follow suit.

In which case this could be about better global policies in a global aviation environment. Not sure, but I think you are probably right.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
As to improving tracking and transmission in real time of the status of the status of operational aircraft, there could be serious technical issues as well as costs almost all airlines are not going to be interested to spending on for very rare occurrences.

Cost is a deterrent for sure. I think a lot of the reason we don't have it is because the OEMs know the airlines don't want to pay more for it so the OEMs don't want to spend the money. I agree but I believe improvements need to be made.

Quoting Markam (Reply 18):
There is an interesting article on The Guardian about this issue

Solid article indeed, thanks for posting.

Quoting rolfen (Reply 22):
Why don't airliners have some kind of battery-operated, crash-proof, powerful transmitter attached to the FDR, which would broadcast their position, along with a special emergency code, as soon as the FDR stops receiving power, or when a high G deceleration, or any other sign of a crash is detected?

An emergency surface beacon that is ejected from the aircraft as soon as there is a major event on the airplane. Not sure but you could be on to something there.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Not possible with current technology.

We have a rover walking around on Mars doing science experiments for us and sending us back results. Of course its possible, it just isn't a regulation or it isn't profitable. I am sure the technology can exist if it doesn't already.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
I'd love to hear you ideas on hour to (1) identify the NOK earlier, (2) confirming notification, (3) dealing with 'family' in multiple locations, (4) verifying that all NOK have been notified before releasing names.

I proposed the question but you obviously can offer more answers. OZ just got penalized a lot of money by the FAA for their failure to notify NOK in a timely manner. The public wasn't aware of this flight being in trouble until 5 hours (?) after it went off radar. Some might think that is too long.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Do you know of a technology that the communications industry hasn't identified?

Nope. I don't. I know the F22 fighter can see another fighter aircraft 5-10 times faster on its radar than any other fighter in the sky so we know that exists. I know the US has missile defense that detects missiles in the sky and sends up another missile and blows it out of the sky. Something tells me we have the technology somewhere in the system to detect a large commercial airliner that wants to be seen everywhere it goes if we can detect fighter jets and missiles that don't want to be seen. Won't be cheap but is a watered down version necessary?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
There really isn't a way to fix that problem in the open ocean

Satellites, floating beacons, I don't know but I wasn't really talking about just the Ocean. Malaysia to Vietnam isn't really that big of a distance. Canada ATC reaches past Greenland so the technology certainly exists; it could just be about cost.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Pilots need to be flying their aircraft, not acting as ATC for other aircraft.

Right now ATC is asking pilots to contact other pilots because they cannot reach themselves. Pilots are already being distracted because they have to listen to ATC for all communication in their area in case that ATC needs them. There are already lots of distractions. I wonder if we have the technology to allow pilots to not be so distracted so they can focus on flying the plane.

You have a lot of negative things to say; it would be great if you have anything to add because you do seem to be knowledgeable. Do you have any ideas on how the system can improve or do you see it as perfect as is?

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):
>Satellite phones
Already in place.

Not in many commercial cockpits.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
I'll add that while it is admirable to make aviation safer, there is always a compromise.

I agree. I think that is the crux of a lot of the issues; its not cost effective. 1 aircraft per 5 years may not be enough for all airlines to want to spend the money.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 28):

Great post. Thanks for adding to the conversation.

tortugamon


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 36, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31250 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
I'll add that while it is admirable to make aviation safer, there is always a compromise. There are plenty of investments to be made in making aviation safer, but they all come at a cost.

Few on A.net seem to understand this very simple concept. They somehow think that no compromise exists. Even when the compromise is pointed out they go into denial. There are many NTSB recommendations which the industry hasn't implemented because of the costs involved.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 37, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31230 times:

Quoting rolfen (Reply 25):
If you have a position and a radius, how much do you have to search?

The problem is the radius from the last know position is never a constant, it can vary quite a bit.

AF447 did a 270 degree descending turn and actually back tracked over a dozen miles from the last reported position. All the previous searches until the wreckage had been found assumed the aircraft continued on course.

There is no telling if this aircraft continued on course after the last reported position, turned due to damage, pilot input, aerodynamic forces, etc.

Did it break-up in the air? or remain intact until it struck the ocean surface?

From 35,000 feet - the difference in the two wreckage locations could be dozens of miles.

If the aircraft flew under power and on course for a few minutes after comms were lost - remember those planes can cover over 100 miles in 12 minutes.

Assuming a possible 12 minute gap between lost comms and impacting the water - the search area will be a minimum of 7,850 square miles, and could be over 31,000 square miles. Since it takes a surface ship close to two hours per square mile to search, an helicopter near 4 square miles per hour, a high flying aircraft - maybe 10 square miles - it would be a few thousand hours of searching.

And floating debris moves.

What is a clean sector on one pass, may have debris on the next pass, or vice versa.


The people running the searches know what they are doing. They have trained on searches, and the SAR community worldwide works together on lessons learned.

But as pointed out above - the ocean is very, very large - and unless there is large intact debris floating - the searchers have to get very close to find and identify items as from the aircraft.


User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31123 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
One of the articles posted mentions how passengers with wifi in the cabin could have access to better weather information then the pilot in the cockpit. This is one example.

That simply isn't true though. Pilots can get weather data sent up to them PRN from the ground. Airlines have policies and procedures to use electronic tablets to get weather information in the cockpit if they have the desire to. Remember though weather isn't quite as dynamic as you might think and there are very few situations where a weather update isn't available to them in some way.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Nope. I don't. I know the F22 fighter can see another fighter aircraft 5-10 times faster on its radar than any other fighter in the sky so we know that exists. I know the US has missile defense that detects missiles in the sky and sends up another missile and blows it out of the sky. Something tells me we have the technology somewhere in the system to detect a large commercial airliner that wants to be seen everywhere it goes if we can detect fighter jets and missiles that don't want to be seen. Won't be cheap but is a watered down version necessary?

That type of technology is a) Militarized and subject to ITAR regulations so would be limited to what aircraft it can be deployed on. The infrastructure that the military has to support these applications are also pretty huge.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Right now ATC is asking pilots to contact other pilots because they cannot reach themselves. Pilots are already being distracted because they have to listen to ATC for all communication in their area in case that ATC needs them. There are already lots of distractions. I wonder if we have the technology to allow pilots to not be so distracted so they can focus on flying the plane.

On oceanic routes either SELCAL is used (a tone is broadcast by the radio station trying to reach the aircraft over HF), this sets off a chime in the aircraft that is being called and the pilot picks up the HF and makes contact. Most modern aircraft uses FANS which includes CPDLC for most contacts and has a SATCOM component for when voice comms are required. They also use HF as a back up.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Not in many commercial cockpits.

You'd be surprised. The company I work for has our Iridium phones on DL 739ERs and again many aircraft use Inmarsat SATCOM for oceanic communications.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31094 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 36):
There are many NTSB recommendations which the industry hasn't implemented because of the costs involved.

i.e. something as simple as car seats being mandated for infants.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 40, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 31035 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 33):

I think there should be camera links to the ground to the cockpit at all time. If this is indeed a cockpit breach, or even if its pilot error, we would know immediately.

Imagine the cost of this technology. Economically indefensible with current technology. Besides, how would it save lives?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Quoting apfpilot (Reply 9):
Not sure what you mean by wifi improvements

One of the articles posted mentions how passengers with wifi in the cabin could have access to better weather information then the pilot in the cockpit. This is one example.

The pax could get the same weather info as the pilots. And almost none of them would know how to glean the relevant bits from it.

I'd rather let the highly trained experts at the pointy end do the flying.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
An emergency surface beacon that is ejected from the aircraft as soon as there is a major event on the airplane. Not sure but you could be on to something there.

Expensive. Complex. Almost never used. In other words not economically defensible.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Do you know of a technology that the communications industry hasn't identified?

Nope. I don't. I know the F22 fighter can see another fighter aircraft 5-10 times faster on its radar than any other fighter in the sky so we know that exists. I know the US has missile defense that detects missiles in the sky and sends up another missile and blows it out of the sky. Something tells me we have the technology somewhere in the system to detect a large commercial airliner that wants to be seen everywhere it goes if we can detect fighter jets and missiles that don't want to be seen. Won't be cheap but is a watered down version necessary?

We have had this tech for decades. It's called primary radar. In fact, primary radar was tracking this very flight.

The F-22 claim sounds more like it can discriminate from clutter faster. It's not magic. Just radar and processing.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Pilots need to be flying their aircraft, not acting as ATC for other aircraft.

Right now ATC is asking pilots to contact other pilots because they cannot reach themselves. Pilots are already being distracted because they have to listen to ATC for all communication in their area in case that ATC needs them. There are already lots of distractions. I wonder if we have the technology to allow pilots to not be so distracted so they can focus on flying the plane.

In long-haul cruise many pilots are probably begging for distractions. Pilots read the paper or a book. They chat. It's not like there's a huge amount of stuff going on. Besides, if acting as a relay would risk the safety of their own flight, pilots simply won't. Most of the time in cruise though, there would be plenty of time for a pilot to relay.

Unless you're in a terminal area, ATC is not a huge chore.

Also, as I said earlier, datalink is already in place in large parts of the world. No need to talk.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 41, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 30989 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
OZ just got penalized a lot of money by the FAA for their failure to notify NOK in a timely manner.

No - the airline was penalized for not following the FAA requirement for providing support and assistance. There is a program and a standard in place. United actually did better than Asiana in San Francisco. Partially because United has a lot more staff in SFO, and United has an excellent team in place for dealing with families in a crash situation.

Asiana simply had not put anything in place before hand as required by regulations for airlines that fly into the US.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
The public wasn't aware of this flight being in trouble until 5 hours (?) after it went off radar. Some might think that is too long.

No it isn't too long.

For many good reasons, public announcements of missing aircraft are not made until the aircraft actually misses its landing time at the destination airport. This practice makes it much easier to notify families because those gathering at the arrival airport can be gathered and informed of the potential status. This also avoids families of people on other aircraft of the airline thinking their flight was involved in a crash.

What is very bad for the families is hearing about a possible crash over the news, and rushing to the airport or jamming the phone lines and airline websites asking for information. Like most largish airlines - Malaysian had several aircraft in the air when this one disappeared. Making sure that not only the authorities, but the airline response staff have the correct flight information is important, and takes time.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
Do you have any ideas on how the system can improve or do you see it as perfect as is?

The system isn't perfect, and neither the airlines nor the aviation authorities are sitting around not doing anything to improve the system.

Some of the biggest issues are over the various nations 'controlling' their own airspace.

AF447 clearly showed that the handoff between oceanic sectors was not monitored closely enough. Even then, the various sectors did not feel they had the authority to declare AF447 missing.

In this case, it looks like the airline and authorities were aware and trying to find the aircraft very soon after the lost comms.

I've been in airborne search aircraft looking for a ship sinking. We saw it burning on the horizon, but when we arrived overhead - we could barely find the six liferafts with 75 people on them. The sea wasn't that rough, but it is very hard to spot, and then keep under observation from a fixed wing aircraft.

That was day time. At night it is much worse.

The system hasn't failed completely. I don't even see anything that it has not been working optimally. But don't really have data to support either conclusion.

When an aircraft, or ship, goes missing - it takes a lot of time, a lot of people and a lot of money to search.

We all want a quick resolution - but sometimes that just isn't possible.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9007 posts, RR: 75
Reply 42, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 30981 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what changes need to happen in civil aviation so that accidents like MH370 do not happen in the future, -or- if they do happen, what changes need to happen so the response is better than what we are currently witnessing. We do not know the outcome of this accident but we have plenty of information to understand where deficiencies lie. I will suggest a few:

Way too early for this thread, you are asking people to speculate on nothing factual.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 43, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 30957 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 21):
If you don't think the thread is a good idea, then don't post in it. It'll help the Signal:Noise ratio. As it is, you're just making things worse.

No, I'm really not. But I would point out that you haven't addressed any of my arguments.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):
I think the fact that we don't know where the plane is and what happened to it and it has been three days is enough of a problem to know that we don't want this to happen again.

The fact that it has been two (not three) days is of very little importance unless it turns out that people survived, but succumbed waiting to be rescued. Of course we don't know that yet, and that's why this series of questions is too premature. If they are all dead, as cold as it may sound, three days versus three years is not going to make a big difference. In my opinion, the problem is impatience.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 44, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 30842 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Black Boxes that communicate in real time with the ground giving us data on the aircraft without the physical black box

Cost-prohibitive at the moment. We're to the point where maintenance messages are economically viable, but the amount of data that current FDRs record would take up far too much bandwidth.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>ATC with better radios with more range and less interference allowing for easier communication with pilots

That's a physical limitation. High-clarity radios are limited by line of sight - there's no way around that. Beyond line of sight, lower-clarity (i.e. HF) radios must be used.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Satellite phones

Already exist.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>GPS in the cockpit

Is already there, has been there for a long time.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Better ATC Radar so missing aircraft are acknowledged sooner, vitals are more accurate, and fewer areas of poor radar coverage.

Radar has the same limitations as radios do. You're not going to get radar coverage over long stretches of water - there is no way around that except for the ADS capability that the aircraft already had and was using.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinejpheym From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30752 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 24):

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Black Boxes that communicate in real time with the ground giving us data on the aircraft without the physical black box

Hideously expensive to implement and maintain for very very little benefit. Example AF447. Would this have saved anyone on board? Nope.


The per-aircraft initial and maintenance costs should be the same order of magnitude of installing or maintaining an aircraft GPS receiver. Iridium modems sell for $400 to $1000. A satellite data transmitter is therefore a relatively low cost piece of equipment, not counting initial development and certification costs.

And yes this could prevent an accident like AF447.

Real-time flight data collection provides the following:

* Emergency crews have better information. Find MH370 faster. It is embarrassing that we need 40 aircraft and 24 ships to search an ocean given today's navigation and communication technology.

* Pilot errors can be automatically caught in real-time (alert the crew), then scrutinized off-line to improve pilot training. Prevent another AF447. For every loss of life accident, how many near miss incidents are there? Are all incidents being documented and analyzed properly? Are all rough landings being analyzed to tell the pilot how he could have performed better?

* Equipment anomalies can be scrutinized better by engineers.

The value of real-time "black box" data is enormous. I can't think of anything more valuable to aviation that was easily achievable with technology from 20 years ago, let alone from today's technology.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 46, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30706 times:

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
The per-aircraft initial and maintenance costs should be the same order of magnitude of installing or maintaining an aircraft GPS receiver. Iridium modems sell for $400 to $1000. A satellite data transmitter is therefore a relatively low cost piece of equipment, not counting initial development and certification costs.

And yes this could prevent an accident like AF447.

How?

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
Pilot errors can be automatically caught in real-time (alert the crew),

Again, how would this analysis of errors be done? Errors that bring down planes tend to be very complex affairs. In any case I really don't think it is a good idea to second-guess the crew when they are managing a crisis. Do you really think the crew of AF447, screwing up by the numbers as they were, would have done better with some guy sitting in a cozy office in Paris giving them his views? Any pilot would have turned that radio off right quick.

In situations where there is time to evaluate things, pilots already consult expertise on the ground today.

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
The value of real-time "black box" data is enormous. I can't think of anything more valuable to aviation that was easily achievable with technology from 20 years ago, let alone from today's technology.

Name one accident in the last twenty years that would not have happened if this kind of technology had been implemented.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 47, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30636 times:

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
* Pilot errors can be automatically caught in real-time (alert the crew)

You're being very optimistic about the ability for someone on the ground to look at some data and draw good conclusions in a short period of time and deliver them to a very busy crew. Remember also that a contributing factor in AF447 was the failure of flight instruments - someone on the ground could have seen what was coming off the instruments and correctly deduced the problem and informed the crew, but it would be an entirely reasonable reaction of the crew to ignore the warning on the grounds that the instruments were unreliable and thus the people on the ground were getting bad data.

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
Are all incidents being documented and analyzed properly?

Yes, or as close as we can get.

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
Are all rough landings being analyzed to tell the pilot how he could have performed better?

Not necessary - pilots generally know what went wrong with a landing.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinejpheym From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30617 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
Quoting Mir (Reply 44):

Cost-prohibitive at the moment. We're to the point where maintenance messages are economically viable, but the amount of data that current FDRs record would take up far too much bandwidth.

Bandwidth for two-way in-flight high speed internet is already economically viable.

In-flight internet uses the same class of high-power geostationary satellites pioneered by Hughes that provide internet for the Hilton Hotel chain and the HughesNet residential satellite internet service. There are terabits of excess bandwidth available in geostationary orbit.

The antennas are low-profile active phased arrays similar to the $3000 antennas sold for mobile satellite TV.

And that's high bandwidth (megabit). Real time "black box" can be compressed and only needs kilobit speeds, therefore a cheaper antenna and modem.


User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30513 times:

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
The per-aircraft initial and maintenance costs should be the same order of magnitude of installing or maintaining an aircraft GPS receiver. Iridium modems sell for $400 to $1000. A satellite data transmitter is therefore a relatively low cost piece of equipment, not counting initial development and certification costs.

You discount the infrastructure needed to then receive catalog and monitor that data as well as the cost of getting that data off the aircraft (inmarsat data is in the range of $3-8MB) keep in mind that the FDR is required to monitor the follow parameters 1 time per second:

1) Time;
(2) Pressure altitude;
(3) Indicated airspeed;
(4) Heading--primary flight crew reference (if selectable, record discrete, true or magnetic); (5) Normal acceleration (Vertical);
(6) Pitch attitude;
(7) Roll attitude;
(8) Manual radio transmitter keying, or CVR/DFDR synchronization reference;
(9) Thrust/power of each engine--primary flight crew reference;
(10) Autopilot engagement status;
(11) Longitudinal acceleration;
(12) Pitch control input;
(13) Lateral control input;
(14) Rudder pedal input;
(15) Primary pitch control surface position;
(16) Primary lateral control surface position;
(17) Primary yaw control surface position;
(18) Lateral acceleration;
Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigation
vii
Federal Legislation and Regulations (cont.)
(19) Pitch trim surface position or parameters of paragraph (a)(82) of this section if currently recorded;
(20) Trailing edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except when parameters of paragraph (a)(85) of this section apply);
(21) Leading edge flap or cockpit flap control selection (except when parameters of paragraph (a)(86) of this section apply);
(22) Each Thrust reverser position (or equivalent for propeller airplane);
(23) Ground spoiler position or speed brake selection (except when parameters of paragraph
(a)(87) of this section apply);
(24) Outside or total air temperature;
(25) Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) modes and engagement status, including
autothrottle;
(26) Radio altitude (when an information source is installed);
(27) Localizer deviation, MLS Azimuth;
(28) Glideslope deviation, MLS Elevation;
(29) Marker beacon passage;
(30) Master warning;
(31) Air/ground sensor (primary airplane system reference nose or main gear);
(32) Angle of attack (when information source is installed);
(33) Hydraulic pressure low (each system);
(34) Ground speed (when an information source is installed);
(35) Ground proximity warning system;
(36) Landing gear position or landing gear cockpit control selection;
(37) Drift angle (when an information source is installed);
(38) Wind speed and direction (when an information source is installed);
(39) Latitude and longitude (when an information source is installed);
(40) Stick shaker/pusher (when an information source is installed);
(41) Windshear (when an information source is installed);
(42) Throttle/power lever position;
(43) Additional engine parameters (as designated in Appendix M of this part);
(44) Traffic alert and collision avoidance system;
(45) DME 1 and 2 distances;
(46) Nav 1 and 2 selected frequency;
(47) Selected barometric setting (when an information source is installed);
(48) Selected altitude (when an information source is installed);
(49) Selected speed (when an information source is installed);
(50) Selected mach (when an information source is installed);
(51) Selected vertical speed (when an information source is installed);
(52) Selected heading (when an information source is installed);
(53) Selected flight path (when an information source is installed);
(54) Selected decision height (when an information source is installed);
(55) EFIS display format;
(56) Multi-function/engine/alerts display format;
(57) Thrust command (when an information source is installed);
(58) Thrust target (when an information source is installed);
(59) Fuel quantity in CG trim tank (when an information source is installed);
(60) Primary Navigation System Reference;
(61) Icing (when an information source is installed);
(62) Engine warning each engine vibration (when an information source is installed);
(63) Engine warning each engine over temp. (when an information source is installed);
(64) Engine warning each engine oil pressure low (when an information source is installed);
Flight Data Recorder Handbook for Aviation Accident Investigation
viii
Federal Legislation and Regulations (cont.)
(65) Engine warning each engine over speed (when an information source is installed); (66) Yaw trim surface position;
(67) Roll trim surface position;
(68) Brake pressure (selected system);
(69) Brake pedal application (left and right);
(70) Yaw or sideslip angle (when an information source is installed);
(71) Engine bleed valve position (when an information source is installed);
(72) De-icing or anti-icing system selection (when an information source is installed);
(73) Computed center of gravity (when an information source is installed);
(74) AC electrical bus status;
(75) DC electrical bus status;
(76) APU bleed valve position (when an information source is installed);
(77) Hydraulic pressure (each system);
(78) Loss of cabin pressure;
(79) Computer failure;
(80) Heads-up display (when an information source is installed);
(81) Para-visual display (when an information source is installed);
(82) Cockpit trim control input position--pitch;
(83) Cockpit trim control input position--roll;
(84) Cockpit trim control input position--yaw;
(85) Trailing edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
(86) Leading edge flap and cockpit flap control position;
(87) Ground spoiler position and speed brake selection; and
(88) All cockpit flight control input forces (control wheel, control column, rudder pedal).

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
* Emergency crews have better information. Find MH370 faster. It is embarrassing that we need 40 aircraft and 24 ships to search an ocean given today's navigation and communication technology.

Questionable if this would help. If power is lost or comms are lost it is useless.

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
* Pilot errors can be automatically caught in real-time (alert the crew), then scrutinized off-line to improve pilot training. Prevent another AF447. For every loss of life accident, how many near miss incidents are there? Are all incidents being documented and analyzed properly? Are all rough landings being analyzed to tell the pilot how he could have performed better?

This is already done through ACARS datalink, exceedence data is monitored and sent to MX on many airplanes either in flight (see AF447) or once the aircraft is parked at the gate and a wi-fi link is established.

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
* Equipment anomalies can be scrutinized better by engineers.

See above

Quoting jpheym (Reply 45):
The value of real-time "black box" data is enormous.

Again this is arguable realtime notification and monitoring of the landing gear selector position is pretty much useless, the relevant data is in many cases already squirted off the airplane.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlinejpheym From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30514 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 46):
Again, how would this analysis of errors be done? Errors that bring down planes tend to be very complex affairs. In any case I really don't think it is a good idea to second-guess the crew when they are managing a crisis. Do you really think the crew of AF447, screwing up by the numbers as they were, would have done better with some guy sitting in a cozy office in Paris giving them his views? Any pilot would have turned that radio off right quick.

Model fitting and statistical deviation from an expected flight plan. There are enough flights in a year to model every piece of data, determine all variances and covariances, adjust for timing of event variances, and produce quality risk metrics valuable to pilots and airlines. I used to be a quantitative financial analyst. There are standard modeling techniques that an engineer would use given access to the data.

EDIT: To clarify, the data would be processed by algorithms and distilled down to event-style exceptions (that a person would look at) as well as general risk metrics (how are pilots and aircraft performing relative to other pilots and aircraft).

[Edited 2014-03-09 22:31:32]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 51, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30503 times:

Flight global has an article about the limitations of technology when it comes to SAR.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-in-search-for-missing-777-396808/

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 38):
Remember though weather isn't quite as dynamic as you might think and there are very few situations where a weather update isn't available to them in some way.

Giving them real time access has to be better than having them contact ground

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 38):
That type of technology is a) Militarized and subject to ITAR regulations so would be limited to what aircraft it can be deployed on. The infrastructure that the military has to support these applications are also pretty huge.

No doubt these are good points. Most of civil aviation has come from military applications. Its the natural evolution.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 38):
You'd be surprised. The company I work for has our Iridium phones on DL 739ERs and again many aircraft use Inmarsat SATCOM for oceanic communications.

I am surprised. I didn't think sat phones were that common.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 40):
I'd rather let the highly trained experts at the pointy end do the flying.

I think you may have read my point incorrectly. I said the pilots may not have current information. If they had real time info that they can access on their own maybe it could help them do their job better. Its just a suggestion to spark conversation.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 40):
In other words not economically defensible.

I am sure this is the reason for the vast majority of the system limitations and it is a very valid one.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 40):
Unless you're in a terminal area, ATC is not a huge chore.
Also, as I said earlier, datalink is already in place in large parts of the world. No need to talk.

Good point.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 41):
No - the airline was penalized for not following the FAA requirement for providing support and assistance.

That was part of it; the other part was the result of "An investigation by the department determined that some family members had not been contacted two days after the accident, and it took five days for all families to be reached"
http://cir.ca/news/sfo-crash-landing-1

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 41):
AF447 clearly showed that the handoff between oceanic sectors was not monitored closely enough.

Good point, we can add this to the list of things to improve.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 41):
When an aircraft, or ship, goes missing - it takes a lot of time, a lot of people and a lot of money to search.
We all want a quick resolution - but sometimes that just isn't possible.

Makes sense; there is no silver bullet here.

Quoting D L X (Reply 43):
The fact that it has been two (not three) days is of very little importance unless it turns out that people survived, but succumbed waiting to be rescued. Of course we don't know that yet, and that's why this series of questions is too premature. If they are all dead, as cold as it may sound, three days versus three years is not going to make a big difference. In my opinion, the problem is impatience.

I don't disagree. I am sure the family members care about two vs three days but that is hard to monetize or enough to get the entire industry to pay more.

There are some desolate areas of Malaysia and Vietnam, how bad would it be if we find out that this aircraft actually went down on land and there are survivors or worse (were survivors). I shudder at the thought. And we have an ELT with no identifiable signal. I think the industry can do better but not sure exactly how.

tortugamon


User currently offlinejpheym From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30257 times:

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 49):
You discount the infrastructure needed to then receive catalog and monitor that data as well as the cost of getting that data off the aircraft (inmarsat data is in the range of $3-8MB) keep in mind that the FDR is required to monitor the follow parameters 1 time per second:

Receiving the data isn't an issue as it would be transmitted over an RF IP network to a geosynchronous satelite, as is already done with in-flight internet.

Cataloging the data is not difficult. The data fields you listed, at 1 to 5 second snapshot intervals, properly compressed is probably at most 10s of kilobits of data per aircraft. That, multiplied by all the aircraft in the air is a fraction of the data analyzed by the average investment bank or hedge fund, and a millionth of the data processed by major internet tech companies like Google.

[Edited 2014-03-09 22:33:36]

[Edited 2014-03-09 22:34:41]

[Edited 2014-03-09 22:35:40]

User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30080 times:

Quoting jpheym (Reply 48):
Bandwidth for two-way in-flight high speed internet is already economically viable.

While it is cheaper it is still very expensive. Depending on what you are using for the pipe, Gogo is the least expensive and highest bandwidth but it is limited in coverage. Inmarsat can be up to $8MB and is in the neighborhood of 330Kbps at the max with the I-4 satellites and has coverage limitations at the polar regions.

Quoting jpheym (Reply 48):
In-flight internet uses the same class of high-power geostationary satellites pioneered by Hughes that provide internet for the Hilton Hotel chain and the HughesNet residential satellite internet service. There are terabits of excess bandwidth available in geostationary orbit.

I'm assuming that you are talking about the ViaSat network, they have severe coverage limitations: http://www.viasat.com/files/assets/C...rage_mod_Aus_Marketing_version.png

Quoting jpheym (Reply 48):
The antennas are low-profile active phased arrays similar to the $3000 antennas sold for mobile satellite TV.

Most antennas that are being used for Satcom in Aviation at this time are still steerable antennas, in fact I'm not aware of any Phased Array antennas being used for any of the major Aviation datalink providers.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30013 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 51):
Giving them real time access has to be better than having them contact ground

In what way isn't what they already get as close to real time as possible?



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 30009 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Not possible with current technology. However several groups / companies are working on burst transmissions under certain trigger events. And more real-time data reporting. There are of course issues with costs (up to $100K per aircraft is best guess along with data transmission costs, staffing to monitor the data, etc.

$100k per aircraft over the lifetime of an aircraft? That's peanuts if we think that the aircraft will probably fly 20k times, carrying 200+ passengers each time. There are also cost issues including life jackets, seat belts, radar etc. in the plane...

DY is providing free Internet access for their passengers over satellite links. The amounts of data transmitted for this is thousands of times more than would be needed for just reporting a few key parameters every x minute.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Do you know of a technology that the communications industry hasn't identified? The radios are the best possible given the coverage requirements and cost factors. Plus once an aircraft gets out of VHF range - HF is the best current technology.

As someone working in the telecommunications industry for 10+ years I seriously doubt that the current technical solution is the best possible available. That's true for almost any system in production. Development is rapid, improvements are made in to the products much faster than in many other industries. However, when a certain technology is deployed it's often in production for 10+ years. In case of aviation, probably much longer. The currently used HF radios are technologically ancient, but they do work.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
Satellite phones take time and effort to establish a connection. Time the pilots in an aircraft with problems don't usually have. The technology and reliability in aircraft is about equal to today's HF communication.

Nothing that could not be automated. Automatic backup links over satellite have been in use for several years for certain critical IP links.

[Edited 2014-03-09 22:45:03]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 29608 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 47):
You're being very optimistic about the ability for someone on the ground to look at some data and draw good conclusions in a short period of time and deliver them to a very busy crew. Remember also that a contributing factor in AF447 was the failure of flight instruments - someone on the ground could have seen what was coming off the instruments and correctly deduced the problem and informed the crew, but it would be an entirely reasonable reaction of the crew to ignore the warning on the grounds that the instruments were unreliable and thus the people on the ground were getting bad data.

I am sure I don't understand all that is involved here but my view is that if you can get the primary instrument readings down to the ground in semi-real time you could potentially get a clear headed view of the problems and maybe another perspective could help. I think everyone see that the AF447 crew was confused. A 'phone a friend' may be helpful if that friend is an instructor pilot and in front of him is all of the relevant readings from the aircraft.

There has been a bunch of times when an aircraft is having a problem and a respected pilot is in the cabin and is asked to come into the cockpit to assist. This would be a 21st century extension. It could be the wrinkle that brings us to single pilot cockpits.

tortugamon


User currently offlineasetiadi From Indonesia, joined May 2013, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 29443 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They should equip BLACKBOX with GPS Signal, just like the one we have in our car. This case, if the plane goes down, we know exactly where to look for.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 58, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 29181 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
I am sure I don't understand all that is involved here but my view is that if you can get the primary instrument readings down to the ground in semi-real time you could potentially get a clear headed view of the problems and maybe another perspective could help.

But if the primary instrument readings are bad, another person looking at them is not going to arrive at a valid conclusion (or, if you believe the instruments to be bad, you're not going to be inclined to believe any conclusion that is drawn from them).

My point is that in the time frame that we are dealing with (a few minutes), someone on the ground is not going to glean any more information from the flight instruments than the pilots will be able to. Sure, after the fact when the data has been gone through they'll be able to get a lot more, but by that time it will be too late to do anything for the flight in question.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 59, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 28918 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 51):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 40):
I'd rather let the highly trained experts at the pointy end do the flying.

I think you may have read my point incorrectly. I said the pilots may not have current information. If they had real time info that they can access on their own maybe it could help them do their job better. Its just a suggestion to spark conversation.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
I am sure I don't understand all that is involved here but my view is that if you can get the primary instrument readings down to the ground in semi-real time you could potentially get a clear headed view of the problems and maybe another perspective could help. I think everyone see that the AF447 crew was confused. A 'phone a friend' may be helpful if that friend is an instructor pilot and in front of him is all of the relevant readings from the aircraft.

Well there's your problem. If the AF447 crew had initially reacted to the emergency by treating it like an emergency instead of running, there would never have been a need to "phone a friend". It never occurred to them to leave things as they were, and by the time they figured they were in real trouble, they were so far behind the airplane it was academic and they were for all intents and purposes already dead.

The AF447 crew had every tool needed to resolve the problem with minimal drama. Basically two concepts that every pilot learns about before the very first solo: checklist and "pitch and power". No assistance will help you if you don't get the basics right.

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
I am sure I don't understand all that is involved here but my view is that if you can get the primary instrument readings down to the ground in semi-real time you could potentially get a clear headed view of the problems and maybe another perspective could help.

But if the primary instrument readings are bad, another person looking at them is not going to arrive at a valid conclusion (or, if you believe the instruments to be bad, you're not going to be inclined to believe any conclusion that is drawn from them).

My point is that in the time frame that we are dealing with (a few minutes), someone on the ground is not going to glean any more information from the flight instruments than the pilots will be able to. Sure, after the fact when the data has been gone through they'll be able to get a lot more, but by that time it will be too late to do anything for the flight in question.

     

Quoting asetiadi (Reply 57):

They should equip BLACKBOX with GPS Signal, just like the one we have in our car. This case, if the plane goes down, we know exactly where to look for.

I don't understand how this would help. GPS is a passive technology. The satellite does not know where your car is.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinecabochris From Mexico, joined Dec 2010, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 28295 times:

Everyone stop.... yes, a MAS 777-200 will transmit data...up to its power and input life, in this case it just stopped! What dose this mean...? well in a few weeks they could be pull the (CVR) from the 80 ft water it is in, and we will all know what happened! As for data... we know it was lost at 35Kft, cruise, on course, and then she went to the sea bed. No anomalies.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 61, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28051 times:

Quoting cabochris (Reply 60):

Everyone stop.... yes, a MAS 777-200 will transmit data...up to its power and input life, in this case it just stopped! What dose this mean...? well in a few weeks they could be pull the (CVR) from the 80 ft water it is in, and we will all know what happened! As for data... we know it was lost at 35Kft, cruise, on course, and then she went to the sea bed. No anomalies.

To be precise, we don't actually know any of that except she was at 35k feet and on course.

The fact that nothing mechanical was reported is most likely due to the fact that MAS does not subscribe to real-time ACARS reporting. ADS-B data exists until the loss of contact.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 62, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 28053 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
Sure, after the fact when the data has been gone through they'll be able to get a lot more, but by that time it will be too late to do anything for the flight in question.

You could be right. I am not sure it could work. I am intrigued by the concept though. QF32 had a crew on the ground trying to figure out what happened. A NW 747 crossing the Pacific had a hard over rudder and they called a instructor pilot at home to help them figure it out. I have to imagine that someone with complete info on the ground with fresh eyes could help on occasion.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 59):
The AF447 crew had every tool needed to resolve the problem with minimal drama. Basically two concepts that every pilot learns about before the very first solo: checklist and "pitch and power". No assistance will help you if you don't get the basics right.

I agree. And worse, if they rely on experts on the ground they could become complacent and not be prepared to fly for themselves.

Quoting cabochris (Reply 60):
As for data... we know it was lost at 35Kft, cruise, on course, and then she went to the sea bed. No anomalies.

It does not appear to be where it where they thought it was. That sounds like an anomaly to me.

tortugamon


User currently offlineushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2965 posts, RR: 16
Reply 63, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 27150 times:

This incident has caused more assumptions than any other topic I have ever seen on here.
The quality of this site is truly declining. smh



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 64, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 27118 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 62):
Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
Sure, after the fact when the data has been gone through they'll be able to get a lot more, but by that time it will be too late to do anything for the flight in question.

You could be right. I am not sure it could work. I am intrigued by the concept though. QF32 had a crew on the ground trying to figure out what happened. A NW 747 crossing the Pacific had a hard over rudder and they called a instructor pilot at home to help them figure it out. I have to imagine that someone with complete info on the ground with fresh eyes could help on occasion.

Absolutely. However in these cases the situation was stabilized. Aviate first. Once you've got the plane nice and stable, then you troubleshoot.

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 63):
This incident has caused more assumptions than any other topic I have ever seen on here.
The quality of this site is truly declining. smh

About the same as AF447 if memory serves. I've been a member for over 10 years and I don't agree quality is declining. About the same I would say.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineplanesmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 26900 times:

Learning and the opportunity for improvement and development should be grabbed when they occur, in finance, aviation, safety, and personally.

Throughout my career I've worked and negotiated with what I now call legacy people (when younger, I used less polite terms). People with a 100 reasons why you should maintain the status quo, and 1,000 reasons why change is bad. Of course, no change should simply be for the sake of change.

As an ENTJ in banking, I was always viewed as a maverick. Wasn't until I worked with (not for) a start-up commercial aircraft manufacturer in 1979, I found my niche. A charismatic leader who wanted to sell solutions and opportunities, not aircraft, or finance, or parts, or training, or trade-ins, or..... Standard operating practice now for commercial aircraft sales, but sadly not yet for most airport companies.

My two cents worth. I predict real-time telemetry for international over water flights and interpol interrogation of every international passenger will become mandatory within a few years. If the USA, Canada, UK, Australia and China make it a requirement for inward passengers, it would become a de facto global standard.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 66, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 26337 times:

Another solid article about possible technology improvements to black boxes and communication:

http://skift.com/2014/03/09/beyond-t...ions-broken-communication-systems/

tortugamon


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10680 posts, RR: 9
Reply 67, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 25806 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
Search and Rescue
>Quicker initiation of S&R operations
>Better equipment located in the right places

The SAR planes seem not to have a single decent camera on board, let alone someone who knows more about cameras than pressing a button. The floating object photos are miserable. Also those planes seem to fly much to high to photograph them. There should at least be one good SLR camera on each plane and professional tele lenses, and someone who knows a little bit about photography.

Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):
>Black Boxes that communicate in real time with the ground giving us data on the aircraft without the physical black box

Something like that definitely. I mean, the AF A330 send out data so investigators knew rather soon that speed and attitude of the plane was totally out of normal. Why did MH370 not do that?


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 68, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 24709 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 66):
Another solid article about possible technology improvements to black boxes and communication:

http://skift.com/2014/03/09/beyond-t...tems/

I didn't see the word "bandwidth" mentioned one time. There are physical (not technical) limitations to doing some of the things that are being described in this article and on this thread. One of the biggies is that satellites simply do not have the bandwidth listen to all 5000+ planes in the air at one time all pinging them with messages that 99.99999999% of the time are saying "I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine." and every couple of years say "I'm falling from the sky." Of course we could put more satellites into space to handle those billions of "I'm fine" messages, but would you want to pay for that?
The only real benefit is so you can have your answer today, when the answer would be exactly the same if you got it tomorrow.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 24510 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 29):
Assuming that the initial position is correct, a hypothetical airliner gliding from 35k feet has a range in excess of 150km. That's about 17500 square kilometers as a bare minimum search area.
Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 27):
Now which radius are you referring to? Range of a/c at time of disappearance? That's a pretty big area...
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 37):
From 35,000 feet - the difference in the two wreckage locations could be dozens of miles.

Many thanks for your answers  
This convinces me more of the need of some kind of beacon that would transmit position just when an impact (or disintegration) is detected, not before, because of the radius problem, nor after, because then it might be buried at the bottom of the ocean (could be an ejectable beacon, though, as tortugamon pointed out). I believe that's possible, if not cheap (as some pointed out). Yet, S&R operations to find a wreckage in the ocean aren't exactly cheap either...!



rolf
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 24282 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
This thread is probably premature.

By probably you meant "completely and utterly"  


User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 23925 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 70):
By probably you meant "completely and utterly"

I agree that it's not worth to talk about MH370 lessons learned, but if the thread was titled "How could we speed up the finding of a lost airplane?" I think a lot of these comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the thread could have been avoided.


User currently onlinethunderboltdrgn From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 591 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 23671 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 59):

I don't understand how this would help. GPS is a passive technology. The satellite does not know where your car is.

It does if you have an anti-theft GPS tracker system for your car or boat.



Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky
User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 23643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 72):
It does if you have an anti-theft GPS tracker system for your car or boat.

Does that require a cell tower to be nearby? i.e. A-GPS?



Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently onlinethunderboltdrgn From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 591 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 23594 times:

Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 73):

Does that require a cell tower to be nearby? i.e. A-GPS?

I don't know. Maybe it does? But surely it would be possible to use reversed GPS?
Sending signals to satellites rather then just receiving signals?

[Edited 2014-03-10 06:02:17]


Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 75, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 23606 times:

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 71):
I agree that it's not worth to talk about MH370 lessons learned, but if the thread was titled "How could we speed up the finding of a lost airplane?"

Agreed. As the thread has actually progressed, it really has turned into that very generalized topic, and not very specific at all about MH370. What probably got my goat is that there really isn't much to talk about MH370 from a lessons learned standpoint yet when all we have is extremely general information (it went missing, and we haven't found it yet). That it turned into the thread you describe is not surprising.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinejpheym From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 23031 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 68):
I didn't see the word "bandwidth" mentioned one time. There are physical (not technical) limitations to doing some of the things that are being described in this article and on this thread. One of the biggies is that satellites simply do not have the bandwidth listen to all 5000+ planes in the air at one time all pinging them with messages that 99.99999999% of the time are saying "I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine." and every couple of years say "I'm falling from the sky." Of course we could put more satellites into space to handle those billions of "I'm fine" messages, but would you want to pay for that?
The only real benefit is so you can have your answer today, when the answer would be exactly the same if you got it tomorrow.

There is no satellite bandwidth issue provided the aircraft are equipped with a suitable phased array or steerable antenna. TerreStar-1 (largest comms satellite in history) was specifically designed to bring 4G data services to 10s of thousands of handheld phones and compete with cell phone carriers in North America. TerreStar corp couldn't find enough business and went bankrupt. The satellite itself is or was available for purchase. The HughesNet and Exede networks also have gigabit capacity and were also designed to communicate with thousands of subscribers.

And there are other options. Transmit the data between neighboring aircraft. I work with a company that develops and sells 10+ gigabit data links operating at 60 GHz, typically used for linking cell towers that don't have fiber. The entire antenna and transceiver is the size of a wallet and costs less than $500 in volume. At kilobit speeds the technical challenges are relaxed 100 fold or more.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 77, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 22964 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 40):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 35):An emergency surface beacon that is ejected from the aircraft as soon as there is a major event on the airplane. Not sure but you could be on to something there.
Expensive. Complex. Almost never used. In other words not economically defensible.

Wasn't something like that a recommendation from BEA from AF447? Or am I thinking of the recommendation for multiple FDR/CVR devices in different locations on the aircraft.

Quoting Mir (Reply 44):
Quoting tortugamon (Thread starter):>Black Boxes that communicate in real time with the ground giving us data on the aircraft without the physical black box
Cost-prohibitive at the moment. We're to the point where maintenance messages are economically viable, but the amount of data that current FDRs record would take up far too much bandwidth.

BEA after AF447 recommended a 'better' data link to be developed to transmit FDR data on an intermittent basis. I think initially once per ten minutes, eventually moving toward a once per minute goal.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 51):
Makes sense; there is no silver bullet here.

Correct. We live in the real world, and despite the incredible amazing changes in technology - we are from a 'no sparrow shall fall' level of technical capability.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 53):
Quoting jpheym (Reply 48):Bandwidth for two-way in-flight high speed internet is already economically viable.
While it is cheaper it is still very expensive.

One aircraft bandwidth might be economical. Malaysian has over 100 aircraft - I would assume normal ops is 60 in the air at one time. Air France has 246 aircraft, China Southern has 459, Delta has 743 mainline aircraft.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 56):
I am sure I don't understand all that is involved here but my view is that if you can get the primary instrument readings down to the ground in semi-real time you could potentially get a clear headed view of the problems and maybe another perspective could help

The first requirement for a flight crew to resolve a problem is to recognize there is a problem, and follow the memory items and checklist. AF447 clearly showed that a modern flight crew in a technically current aircraft can make mistakes, and if the crew does not work together - disaster happens. The pilot flying made a mistake. Maybe understandable, maybe not. He appears to have selected a pitch setting for Unreliable Air Speed. Unfortunately, the data looks like he was trying to achieve the pitch setting for low level UAS, not cruise level UAS. The vastly more experienced PNF never ran the checklist. Never asked the PF what pitch he was trying to achieve to verify the correct amount was being sought. The pilots did not hold the stick back during the entire fall. They both tried down pitch several times. Just not for long enough to regain control. They ignored every correct instrument and indication the aircraft gave them. I seriously doubt they would have not ignored any attempt to communicate with them from the ground, even if it were technically feasible.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 64):
About the same as AF447 if memory serves. I've been a member for over 10 years and I don't agree quality is declining.

I do think AF447 elevated the discussion level - but two factors stood out in my mind. (1) Many folks on this forum are much more focused on the business aspects of airlines, not the technology behind aircraft, ATC, oversight, etc; (2) folks love conspiracies rather than the simple truth that humans are not perfect, neither are the aircraft they operate.

Quoting na (Reply 67):
The SAR planes seem not to have a single decent camera on board, let alone someone who knows more about cameras than pressing a button. The floating object photos are miserable. Also those planes seem to fly much to high to photograph them. There should at least be one good SLR camera on each plane and professional tele lenses, and someone who knows a little bit about photography.

The photos are quite sufficient to identify if the debris is from an aircraft or any of the hundreds of other sources of floating debris on the ocean.

The lower the plane flies, the harder it is to focus on a small object with a telephoto lense. I'm certain the cost factor is involved in some camera decisions.

Another factor is that the lower a plane flies, the less area it can search, and the more likely it is to miss indications of a debris field. They need an overview, not a detail view at this time.

They are not after photos good enough for perfect images. They want general photos of debris which can be linked to an aircraft. There should be several hundred items, weighing a few hundred pounds floating if the aircraft sent down in the ocean. Not single or a handful of items floating around. The aircraft are looking for a debris field, not a single object.

Quoting rolfen (Reply 69):
This convinces me more of the need of some kind of beacon that would transmit position just when an impact (or disintegration) is detected

There is one on most aircraft - an ELT.

And as discussed above - there are several reasons one can fail. A most common reason is the aircraft could have sank quickly. The ELT can't transmit far through water.

Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 73):
Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 72):It does if you have an anti-theft GPS tracker system for your car or boat. Does that require a cell tower to be nearby? i.e. A-GPS?
Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 74):
Quoting 9VSIO (Reply 73):Does that require a cell tower to be nearby? i.e. A-GPS? I don't know. Maybe it does? But surely it would be possible to use reversed GPS?Sending signals to satellites rather then just receiving signals?

GPS is badly misused. It is a one-way system where data from several satellites - normally a minimum of three - is compared in the device and a position determined by the electronics in the GPS box.

'GPS' tracking always involves some type of transmission using the GPS determined position to an alternate network. Normally the cell phone network, though some systems like those on aircraft transmit the position via ACARS, ADSB, etc.

The satellites are not designed to receive data from individual GPS units and retransmit that data to the ground.

GPS satellites are in a relatively low earth orbit pattern and move all around the globe every few hours.


User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 22648 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 77):
One aircraft bandwidth might be economical. Malaysian has over 100 aircraft - I would assume normal ops is 60 in the air at one time. Air France has 246 aircraft, China Southern has 459, Delta has 743 mainline aircraft.

Norwegian has 74 planes currently that offer FREE Wifi onboard. They're an LCC selling rather cheap flights and their customers get the access for free.

Norwegian says the following:
"The planes are equipped with two wireless access points. On top of the plane is an antenna that communicates with a satellite orbiting above the earth. When passengers on board use their WiFi device to get online, that request goes from the wireless access point, to the antenna and satellite, down to the ground to find the website. The signal then heads back to the plane again. All this happens within a few seconds. "

The amount of data that the passengers of the 74 DY planes transmit is definitely more than let's say a 5000 planes would need if they'd report their location in a very simple and short message every 10 minutes or so.

In other words, I don't buy the "we can't afford it" argument.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 79, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 22384 times:

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 71):
I agree that it's not worth to talk about MH370 lessons learned, but if the thread was titled "How could we speed up the finding of a lost airplane?"

Agreed. As the thread has actually progressed, it really has turned into that very generalized topic, and not very specific at all about MH370. What probably got my goat is that there really isn't much to talk about MH370 from a lessons learned standpoint

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 78):
Norwegian has 74 planes currently that offer FREE Wifi onboard. They're an LCC selling rather cheap flights and their customers get the access for free.

* * *

In other words, I don't buy the "we can't afford it" argument.

Is that system available over the ocean?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 80, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20587 times:

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 78):
In other words, I don't buy the "we can't afford it" argument.

Exactly.

A dedicated system would be more reliable and performant, but if we want to do something cheap - In many cases, the systems are already there, or under development (ACARS, ADS, internet...), and all that is needed is to adapt them and to improve them to detect catastrophic events then send automatic broadcasts, and somehow making that mandatory, or at least recommended.

Some people here just seem to have decided that it's not economically feasible - without giving any proof nor data, when, in fact the burden of proof rests on them.

[Edited 2014-03-10 09:25:23]

[Edited 2014-03-10 09:29:02]


rolf
User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20361 times:

I think manufacturers need to devise some kind of inflateable buoy of some sort that automatically inflates and comes to the surface in case of a crash at sea; at least to mark the spot of the wreckage. I don't know how they will keep it from floating away once it is deployed in the water or where exactly they will place this buoy in the aircraft before deployment (tail section or wheel well or both perhaps?) nor do i know the feasibility of doing such a thing. The buoy could perhaps be fitted with a transmitter for satellites to pick up the distress signal.

One such example is a SonoBuoy - http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14030/css/14030_105.htm I am sure it can be adapted for commercial aircraft use?

[Edited 2014-03-10 09:45:06]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 82, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20323 times:

Still catching up on reading posts above but in the mean time here are a couple more articles about black box improvements

This first one mentions a Boeing patent:

Quote:

"But even a little data is better than almost none, which the disappearance of flight 370 makes clear. It should be rather straightforward to install a processor connected to the black box that can select a subset of the most relevant data. A recent patent application filed by Boeing describes such a system, which specifies a limited data set including the precise location of the aircraft and the flight control inputs by the pilot or the automation system.

There will be costs to mandating such a system, but the benefits are clear. Multi-national search and recovery teams involving a fleet of ships and search aircraft should no longer be necessary. Critical safety data could provide clues of system or structural failures much faster, making the entire air transport system safer."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ia-airlines-flight-mh370-black-box

And this one mentions 'bandwidth':

Quote:

But black box data doesn’t need to be streamed all the time “because 99.999% of the time you don’t need it”, suggested Gogo executive VP and general manager – business aviation services John Wade after my interview with Troadec. “If you see something that the avionics on board thinks is an event, you could request that data be streamed for a period of time, so a hybrid could emerge where a scenario is sent, and that deals with the issue of expense [concerns].”

While important work must be done to ensure data is securely transmitted over connectivity pipes (broadband or narrowband), “It doesn’t make sense that the FAAs and EASAs of the world say they can’t afford this. They’ll find out very shortly that they can afford this. They move so slowly, we need to introduce it many years in advance,” says Panasonic Avionics VP David Bruner.
http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...tunned-mh370-could-vanish-in-2014/

tortugamon


User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 20103 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 82):
Gogo executive VP and general manager – business aviation services John Wade

That'd be my boss. Not surprisingly I agree with him. All of the data doesn't need to be streamed. Again if you look at the parameters that are included on the FDR streaming most of them wouldn't need to be streamed all the time and probably better than 50% would never need to be streamed. There are already functions in place to stream most of the relevant ones (again see AF447) when needed. Maybe the take away from this would be that this functionality should be on more aircraft. Even then I don't think it would help with SAR but would help with investigations and possibly identifying a critical flight issue that might exist in other aircraft.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20105 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 79):
Agreed. As the thread has actually progressed, it really has turned into that very generalized topic, and not very specific at all about MH370. What probably got my goat is that there really isn't much to talk about MH370 from a lessons learned standpoint

We have learned one thing again from MH370, it is necessary to have a system making it easier to locate a downed airliner. It would cut down on the effort and cost needed to search and find the wreckage. In the case of survivors, unhappily seldom the case, finding the wreckage fast is there only chance.


User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 20014 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 81):
One such example is a SonoBuoy - http://navyaviation.tpub.com/14030/css/14030_105.htm I am sure it can be adapted for commercial aircraft use?

A Sonobuoy is air dropped and wouldn't really be relevant in this case.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 81):
I think manufacturers need to devise some kind of inflateable buoy of some sort that automatically inflates and comes to the surface in case of a crash at sea; at least to mark the spot of the wreckage. I don't know how they will keep it from floating away once it is deployed in the water or where exactly they will place this buoy in the aircraft before deployment (tail section or wheel well or both perhaps?) nor do i know the feasibility of doing such a thing. The buoy could perhaps be fitted with a transmitter for satellites to pick up the distress signal.

This could make sense. It could even be integrated into the stab with bolts that trigger release in the event of a massive deceleration. It wouldn't need to remain tethered to the wreckage either. Once it is activated and reaches the surface it could get a fix on its location retain that fix and broadcast it out over 406mHz. Even if it floats away the initial fix would provide a location of where the aircraft went down (or at least reasonably close I'm not educated enough on how underwater currents would effect something that rises rapidly to the surface.) Then subsequent fixes would help to establish sea currents and drift to aid in wreckage/survivor recovery.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 86, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19836 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 84):
We have learned one thing again from MH370, it is necessary to have a system making it easier to locate a downed airliner.

Why is it "necessary?" This is an honest question in need of an answer before we embark on spending billions on doing something different.

Has there been an accident in say the last 30 years where we never found the plane? In the end, did it matter that we did not find the plane in the first 3 days of searching?

It's not "necessary" just because we want things now, now, now in this day and age.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 87, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19668 times:

Quoting na (Reply 67):
The SAR planes seem not to have a single decent camera on board, let alone someone who knows more about cameras than pressing a button. The floating object photos are miserable. Also those planes seem to fly much to high to photograph them. There should at least be one good SLR camera on each plane and professional tele lenses, and someone who knows a little bit about photography.

This is a fantastic idea in my opinion. It appears that a significant amount of the SAR (outside of the Orion's and the specialized ships) consist of guys looking out windows. There are drones flying that have tremendous camera resolution. I just don't know if that can take the place of a human eye ball yet though.

Quoting na (Reply 67):
Something like that definitely. I mean, the AF A330 send out data so investigators knew rather soon that speed and attitude of the plane was totally out of normal. Why did MH370 not do that?

I believe it was confirmed today that MH370 had this capability as well. Why we have not heard the information from it is a question though.

Quoting D L X (Reply 68):
One of the biggies is that satellites simply do not have the bandwidth listen to all 5000+ planes in the air at one time all pinging them with messages that 99.99999999% of the time are saying "I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine." and every couple of years say "I'm falling from the sky."

And I think that is the crux of the problem. I wonder if it could be linked to lost cabin pressure or major loss of altitude or something that triggers a response to send out a real time signal. I agree that real time, all the time, data would be a difficult ask in the near future.

Quoting rolfen (Reply 69):
This convinces me more of the need of some kind of beacon that would transmit position just when an impact (or disintegration) is detected, not before, because of the radius problem, nor after, because then it might be buried at the bottom of the ocean

Me too.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 71):
I agree that it's not worth to talk about MH370 lessons learned, but if the thread was titled "How could we speed up the finding of a lost airplane?"

Agreed. My intention was to create a dialogue about system improvements that wouldn't be lost in the mega-thread. Right now I had hoped to talk about ATC, SAR, and RADAR, or in other words, things that are happening now and how they can be improved, but as we get information I hope this thread will begin to discuss other topics as they become known.

Quoting jpheym (Reply 76):
And there are other options. Transmit the data between neighboring aircraft. I work with a company that develops and sells 10+ gigabit data links operating at 60 GHz, typically used for linking cell towers that don't have fiber. The entire antenna and transceiver is the size of a wallet and costs less than $500 in volume. At kilobit speeds the technical challenges are relaxed 100 fold or more.

Another great idea. These aircraft already communicate with each other; why not have them communicate real data with each other as well. In dense areas it could be a real mess but maybe you could make an aircraft a beacon/tower and you don't need to beam up data to a satellite or something. Make each aircraft as part of a network of data/communications.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 77):
I seriously doubt they would have not ignored any attempt to communicate with them from the ground, even if it were technically feasible.

I think you are saying it wouldn't have helped AF447 and I think you might be right there. It would help slower developing or controlled problems. AF447 could have been close because I think it developed over a 10+ minute window. I think the best thing they can do to prevent an AF447 is pilot training and improved reliability of air speed devices (pitot tubes) which they have done.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 77):
There is one on most aircraft - an ELT.

Yes, and its ultrasonic 'ping' isn't working so well right now. I bet it will when the SAR crew get closer to it. We developed this ping technology what 6? 8? decades ago? Some wrist watches are now equipped with location beacons; shouldn't a $200+ million have slightly better technology?

I respect your opinion, and every topic needs a devil's advocate but it would be interesting to hear you put your knowledge to creative solutions instead of just criticism. I am not a fan of status quo. Regardless, your comments are extremely valid.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 83):
That'd be my boss. Not surprisingly I agree with him. All of the data doesn't need to be streamed. Again if you look at the parameters that are included on the FDR streaming most of them wouldn't need to be streamed all the time and probably better than 50% would never need to be streamed. There are already functions in place to stream most of the relevant ones (again see AF447) when needed. Maybe the take away from this would be that this functionality should be on more aircraft. Even then I don't think it would help with SAR but would help with investigations and possibly identifying a critical flight issue that might exist in other aircraft

Good to have you on this thread. I agree with your view here and it makes a lot of sense.

I wonder if the cockpit/aircraft wifi can be secure from hackers. I would worry about that if I were Boeing/Airbus. It may have to be a one way direction of data. That drone that Iran hacked and landed in Iran is just one scary example of going too far.

tortugamon


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19609 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 86):
Why is it "necessary?"

Perhaps the cost involved in search and recovery would make it "necessary" (not to mention the emotional cost of family members not knowing fate of their loved ones)? 40 ships and 25+ aircraft are involved in this search and rescue effort for 3 days and nothing has come up; whereas; if technology & a system was in place it may have taken just 1 or 2 (or perhaps 3) ships perhaps to go directly to the wreckage site for Search and Rescue.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19504 times:

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 85):
A Sonobuoy is air dropped and wouldn't really be relevant in this case.

I gave that just as an example. In fact being air dropped makes it more relevant to this and all cases; if the buoy could differentiate between being airdropped or being deployed after aircraft impacts with water and signals that event to satellites that is key information to suggest whether aircraft broke up at altitude or after hitting the water!


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 90, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19408 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 88):
40 ships and 25+ aircraft are involved in this search and rescue effort for 3 days and nothing has come up; whereas; if technology & a system was in place it may have taken just 1 or 2 (or perhaps 3) ships perhaps to go directly to the wreckage site for Search and Rescue.

How much do you think the search and rescue costs, and how often? (Every 5-10 years or so?) Compare that to how much putting the systems you and others are describing in every plane on the planet and putting up the satellites to deal with it, including the additional coverage boost that will be needed to fly over the less developed parts of the world? Or the ejecting beacon that signals that you've crashed? My guess is that the solution is far more expensive than the search and rescue operation.

If it were something that prevented crashes, I'd be more for it. But I still have not heard a compelling reason why it becomes necessary to find a plane within a day when doing so does not change the outcome.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineapfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 19102 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):

I wonder if the cockpit/aircraft wifi can be secure from hackers. I would worry about that if I were Boeing/Airbus. It may have to be a one way direction of data. That drone that Iran hacked and landed in Iran is just one scary example of going too far.

I would think that there would have to be an airgap between the network that is connected to the mx system and the network that pax/crew can access.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):
I believe it was confirmed today that MH370 had this capability as well. Why we have not heard the information from it is a question though.

That capability isn't triggered all of the time. Usually it will send a message out when something isn't normal, it is used so that the MX base can start trouble shooting the problem if it becomes a bigger issue. It is also used in situations where the engines have exceeded parameters since many engines aren't overhauled on time but on condition.

In this situation if that data wasn't sent it would SEEM to indicate to me something that happened quickly and wasn't related to a system that reports data out.



Opinions are my own and do not reflect an endorsement or position of my employer.
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 18666 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 86):
Why is it "necessary?" This is an honest question in need of an answer before we embark on spending billions on doing something different.

I think you do not want to contemplate the enormous cost in not only money but man hours every such search involves.
That is why I say we have to.

The second point is in some cases there are survivors, it has happened, and they have little chance to survive if the wreckage is not found fast.

We have the added risk of accidents and people dying in the search force because not all search and rescue is done under ideal conditions and as search and rescue does sometimes find somebody alive, the accepted risk factor is often high.

So these lame excuse of spending billions, without offering an idea what would be too much, is just that, a lame excuse.


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18440 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 90):
How much do you think the search and rescue costs, and how often? (Every 5-10 years or so?) Compare that to how much putting the systems you and others are describing in every plane on the planet and putting up the satellites to deal with it, including the additional coverage boost that will be needed to fly over the less developed parts of the world? Or the ejecting beacon that signals that you've crashed? My guess is that the solution is far more expensive than the search and rescue operation.

If it were something that prevented crashes, I'd be more for it. But I still have not heard a compelling reason why it becomes necessary to find a plane within a day when doing so does not change the outcome.

I think you are downplaying what search and rescue costs. If we take 20.000 USD an hour, 50 units searching, 3 days that would be 72 Mill USD for nothing found. I think I count low.

Lets assume this equipment, perhaps after a partial successful watering would help save a few survivors. We do not know if not finding a wreckage has killed how many survivors during the years of aviation.

And search and rescue has cost lives by itself during the years.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18325 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
This, my friends, is an attitude that inhibits societal progress. You do not need to know what caused to crash to see what issues cropped up during the investigation. Clearly, there are problems with the ability to locate this aircraft.

Actually is comments are spot on.

Societies rush to find immediate answers is the societal problem because it pushes people to rush to an answer.

[Edited 2014-03-10 12:05:01]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 95, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18242 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 90):
How much do you think the search and rescue costs, and how often? (Every 5-10 years or so?)

Small planes go missing more often than giant airliners. Steve Fossett's plane was missing for over a year. Military applications abound: flight 19? Boats go missing as well. There is a family off of New Zealand that is still missing despite a lot of time/money on SAR for them. A solution to this problem could have utility in backwoods SAR or mountaineering.

Quoting apfpilot (Reply 91):
I would think that there would have to be an airgap between the network that is connected to the mx system and the network that pax/crew can access.

I think you might be right.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 94):
Societies rush to find immediate answers is the societal problem because it pushes people to rush to an answer.

Not a bad thing.

tortugamon


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18207 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 95):
Not a bad thing.

In incident investigation, its a horrible thing.


User currently offlinebmw770xli From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18049 times:

What is wrong with (most) of you??? The problem is we don't know where the aircraft is therefore we don't know what went wrong. This thread is simply stating that with all the technology we have nowadays, there should be better ways of tracking aircraft. Am I the only one to see this? No no wonder society moves so slowly, most of you are arguing that we don't know what went wrong. Well, duh, because the aircraft is missing. Why don't we know where the aircraft is? Because we haven't implemented better tracking technology. Idiots.

User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17954 times:

Quoting bmw770xli (Reply 97):
What is wrong with (most) of you???

Most of them don't understand aircraft incident investigation or the limitations even with modern tech.

The problem is people want answers in 30 seconds.

People aren't idiots. Most people on here don't even understand the limitations of the technology. They think GPS is a potential solution to the problem which clearly shows they have no concept of how GPS works.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 99, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17927 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 96):
In incident investigation, its a horrible thing.

The horrible thing is when investigators give in to that pressure and release pre-mature information or make poor decisions.

The push for answers is natural, common, and will not be stopped. Better training of key personnel who have to deal with it is something that can be helped.

Its easier to change how key personnel react then it is to change society.

tortugamon


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 100, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17892 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 95):
Small planes go missing more often than giant airliners. Steve Fossett's plane was missing for over a year. Military applications abound: flight 19? Boats go missing as well. There is a family off of New Zealand that is still missing despite a lot of time/money on SAR for them. A solution to this problem could have utility in backwoods SAR or mountaineering.

  

Spot on!


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 101, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17828 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 95):
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 94):
Societies rush to find immediate answers is the societal problem because it pushes people to rush to an answer.

Not a bad thing.
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 96):
In incident investigation, its a horrible thing.

  

And not just in incident investigation. In search and rescue, it is a bad thing. The first responder that rushes in often falls victim to the same thing that caused him to come in the first place. Think about basic plane survival tactics that they tell you every time you get on a commercial jet. Don't open your life vest inside the cabin. Don't open the door until directed by a member of your crew, or at least not before checking for debris and fire. What happens when you rush and inflate your life jacket? Well, a couple hundred people died in that Ethiopian hijacking/ditching because they floated to the top of the cabin and couldn't swim out the door. (The ones that didn't rush lived.) What happens when you open the door on the side of the plane where there's fire? You let the fire in, and the whole cabin is filled with deadly smoke. Rushing in is a terrible idea - that's why police, firemen, and pilots and others analyze first. Then act.

That's why I'm also not particularly concerned that it's been 3 days. Does anyone on this board actually think we will NEVER find MH370? I sure don't.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 95):
Small planes go missing more often than giant airliners. Steve Fossett's plane was missing for over a year. Military applications abound: flight 19? Boats go missing as well. There is a family off of New Zealand that is still missing despite a lot of time/money on SAR for them. A solution to this problem could have utility in backwoods SAR or mountaineering.

Are you suggesting putting the systems you describe on every little plane and boat also?

I mean, look -- if cost were no concern, obviously we should do all that. Hell, implant a high powered transmitter in every human at birth and no one will ever be lost. Clearly that's absurd though when you do actually consider cost versus benefit. And so far, the only benefit anyone is really saying is the impression that it will allow you to find the bodies faster. (Yes, I know that is a VERY cold thing to say, and even I feel a little uncomfortable laying it out like that. But it is the stark reality that we are dealing with: if you can't find a 200' x 200' plane, the crash was probably not survivable. The only benefit these suggestions would grant us, at quite an expense, is that we can find the victims fast. But that doesn't change their status any.)

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 93):
I think you are downplaying what search and rescue costs. If we take 20.000 USD an hour, 50 units searching, 3 days that would be 72 Mill USD for nothing found. I think I count low.

Actually, your number is extremely high -- three times what was spent finding Air France 447. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/ma...08Plane-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

According to this article, the AF447 investigation cost about $25 Million US by the time they found the plane 2 years after it crashed. So, no, i don't think installing billions of dollars worth of equipment that won't actually save lives is worth it when a lengthy, high profile investigation only costs $25 Million.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 98):

The problem is people want answers in 30 seconds.

  



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17823 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 99):
The horrible thing is when investigators give in to that pressure and release pre-mature information or make poor decisions.

So then you want a PR person instead of an investigator.   


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17816 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 90):
How much do you think the search and rescue costs,

More than 25 million $ for AF 447 per this - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/ma...8Plane-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. To answer your point though i don't know how much the SAR costs, nor do i know how much it costs to outfit planes with features that are being talked about on this thread. In case you know the approx costs please share it.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17562 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 103):
More than 25 million $ for AF 447 per this - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/ma...8Plane-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. To answer your point though i don't know how much the SAR costs, nor do i know how much it costs to outfit planes with features that are being talked about on this thread. In case you know the approx costs please share it.

To be sure, if they want to launch a fleet of satellites to support it, they can run into multiple billions rather quickly.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 105, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17407 times:

Quoting bmw770xli (Reply 97):
This thread is simply stating that with all the technology we have nowadays, there should be better ways of tracking aircraft. Am I the only one to see this?

Well stated and you are not alone.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 98):
They think GPS is a potential solution to the problem which clearly shows they have no concept of how GPS works.

GPS could be part of the solution. The solution would need to know that it is in trouble, collect key data (like GPS), then communicate it. Obviously GPS isn't helpful without the other two items.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 100):
Spot on!

Good to see we can find common ground every once in awhile.  
Quoting D L X (Reply 101):
Are you suggesting putting the systems you describe on every little plane and boat also?

Well it depends on the solution right? GPS has gone from a military program to nerdy teenagers going geocaching or housewives trying to get to the grocery store for milk and eggs. That technology was developed in the 1970s and didn't becomes operational until the 1990s. Thats a long way in a short period of time. Can the technology be flipped now where individuals can send signals to satellites from reasonably priced devices instead of just receiving information from them?

A very large challenge no doubt but there certainly are a lot of uses if we can figure it out. Anyone know the capacity of geosynchronous orbit? With these advances at SpaceX and others it will get cheaper to launch devices.

The more applications of the technology the cheaper the devices will get obviously.

Quoting D L X (Reply 101):
The only benefit these suggestions would grant us, at quite an expense, is that we can find the victims fast. But that doesn't change their status any.)

Its interesting that more people have lived through plane crashes then have died in them. I am not so sure that no lives could have been saved. I will think on this longer but this is a key question where answers will set the pace for advancement.

I tell you one thing: however outrageous, if this aircraft is found on an island with survivors or they can prove that it floated for a couple hours like US #1549, the money for such programs will increase dramatically.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 102):
So then you want a PR person instead of an investigator.

Why can't one person have two roles? Did you listen to any of the OZ press conferences by Deborah Hersman at the NTSB. I found her to be very factual, to the point, responsive, and in-control of her domain and never out over her skis as they say. Technical but trained in public relations. Certainly the person handling the SAR needs to be trained extensively in SAR but all public communication needs to come from someone trained like Debby in my opinion.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 104):
To be sure, if they want to launch a fleet of satellites to support it, they can run into multiple billions rather quickly.

There is not many things like this but launching payloads in space will becomes cheaper not more expensive in the coming decades.

tortugamon


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 16898 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
Technical but trained in public relations.

Most PR people cant work their way out of a closet and you want them to be technical?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
There is not many things like this but launching payloads in space will becomes cheaper not more expensive in the coming decades.

All I can do is shake my head on this statement.

Nevermind the fact that whatever prevented the crew from communicating probably would have rendered useless several billions in technology development and implementation to get what you want.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
Did you listen to any of the OZ press conferences by Deborah Hersman at the NTSB. I found her to be very factual, to the point, responsive, and in-control of her domain and never out over her skis as they say.

And she released far to much information which lead to even more speculation by the media. The media and uninformed liked it because they wanted information on the fly. Anyone with any industry experience wanted her to shut up because on multiple occasions she stepped into areas where she was providing information that should only come from the airline and crossed into the area of speculation about probable cause.

[Edited 2014-03-10 13:59:41]

User currently offlineWorldFlight From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16729 times:

I didn't read the whole thread but I am sure the aircraft was equipped with Triple GPS/INS or GPS/IRU, HF as well as SATCOM, and Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS).

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1763 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's impossible to design an emergency transmitter which will survive every conceivable event. The a/c here was either vaporized in a catostrophic explosion or crashed somewhere that is uninhabited and the ELT was damaged in which case the race is on to find it before the jungle or other growth covers it up.

We need to see how the investigation goes before we pick it apart.


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16596 times:

I think the people hear confuse two things.

A. Finding the wreck and sometimes possible survivors, and that has to happen as fast as possible.

and B. the accident investigation with is slow and methodical and takes sometimes years.

To have the argument that because B is slow A does not have to happen fast is one of the craziest arguments appearing here.

Quoting D L X (Reply 101):
Actually, your number is extremely high -- three times what was spent finding Air France 447. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/ma...08Plane-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Yes the ONE ship the Alucia searching for the black box did cost more than 25 million USD, and she allready knew were about to search after others had located the debris.
What do you think an hour of a SAR helicopter costs, an P3 Orion, a Breguet Atlantic, a Corvette, a destroyer? Several of them for weeks?
Business jet rates are between 2.400 and 5.500 USD, equip them with specialised expensive equipment, crew them with several observers and look were you end.

And did you read the article carefully?

one quote:
“It’s ridiculous,” Peter Goelz says. “There is absolutely no reason not to have live-streaming data.” As managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board in the late 1990s, Goelz saw his share of accidents, but the disappearance of Flight 447 got under his skin. The fact that in an era of wireless technology, when passengers on some jets can surf the Internet, the most valuable information about a flight is still stored on the very airplane that has, by definition, crashed before the information is needed, did not sit well with Goelz.

another quote:
“So it’s possible that some of them were still alive?” I asked.
Sarmento nodded. “Most died on impact,” he said. “Some could have survived.”

next quote:
“The medical examiner in Brazil didn’t see any signs of explosion,” I noted.
“No,” Bouillard said. “We are sure that there is no depressurization in flight, because all the masks were still in the box.”
“The medical examiner also said it’s possible that there could have been survivors,” I said. “Do you think so?”
Bouillard was silent. “I don’t know,” he said. “It’s impossible to say.”
Of course, some passengers may have survived the impact and then died quickly, but there is also a possibility that some lived longer. The surface water near Tasil Point can be as warm as 80 degrees in June, and according to hypothermic tables, a person can survive in those conditions for up to 12 hours before falling unconscious. The search plane finally arrived at Tasil Point 13 hours after the crash.

So I understand this tenor here were well, it is absolute not necessary to install equipment to find a possible wreck fast, it could cost money.   


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16426 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 104):
To be sure, if they want to launch a fleet of satellites to support it, they can run into multiple billions rather quickly

Why would they need to launch a fleet of satellites just for this? I am no stallite expert but what about leveraging existing satellites that various contries have up there in space?


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2342 posts, RR: 2
Reply 111, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16311 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 77):
GPS satellites are in a relatively low earth orbit pattern and move all around the globe every few hours.

Orbits in the 12,000 mile range are never considered low.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16319 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
So I understand this tenor here were well, it is absolute not necessary to install equipment to find a possible wreck fast, it could cost money.

Just so you understand the reality here. AF 447 crashed 400 miles from land. What boat or rotorcraft do you propose they use to get there inside of 12 hours in poor weather to perform a successful search and rescue? The fastest ship, assuming its already at the closest land point to the crash site, would take over 10 hours to get there in clear weather.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 110):
Why would they need to launch a fleet of satellites just for this? I am no stallite expert but what about leveraging existing satellites that various contries have up there in space?

What satellites? There are millions of square miles of airspace not covered by communication satellites. The vast majority of satellites have targeted coverage. The ones that don't are usually used by the military and even they have coverage limits.

[Edited 2014-03-10 14:36:40]

User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 750 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16235 times:

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 78):
The amount of data that the passengers of the 74 DY planes transmit is definitely more than let's say a 5000 planes would need if they'd report their location in a very simple and short message every 10 minutes or so.

In other words, I don't buy the "we can't afford it" argument.
Quoting apfpilot (Reply 83):
That'd be my boss. Not surprisingly I agree with him. All of the data doesn't need to be streamed. Again if you look at the parameters that are included on the FDR streaming most of them wouldn't need to be streamed all the time and probably better than 50% would never need to be streamed. There are already functions in place to stream most of the relevant ones (again see AF447) when needed. Maybe the take away from this would be that this functionality should be on more aircraft. Even then I don't think it would help with SAR but would help with investigations and possibly identifying a critical flight issue that might exist in other aircraft.

Agreed, the amount of bandwidth you would need per plane is comparatively trivial when compared to the rest of the wifi traffic. I would design a system with a few levels built in:
1. Basic flight mode: transmits only coordinates and altitude when in "known" airspace (defined by overflight frequency statistics) every few seconds. Trivial bandwidth requirements compared to normal wifi traffic.
2. Remote flight mode: basic plus a few other parameters (e.g. temperature, IAS, G/S, wx data) for areas away from radar coverage
3. Unusual flight mode: triggered by unusual situations, e.g. flight below 25 k feet over the middle of the ocean. Sends more data about control inputs, engine parameters, etc
4. Emergency mode: triggered by exceeding normal flight parameters (e.g. airspeed >MMO/VMO, pitch>x or roll>y, etc.), send all ~90 parameters back to HQ and preference that data over normal wifi traffic.

Knowing that most planes are narrobodies that fly over land or close to shore, most of the traffic would use basic mode. Remote would be used for a number of overwater flights, but careful parameter selection would limit bandwidth use. Unusual mode would get triggered tty cheap to implement. If someone finds flaws with this reasoning, please let me know.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):
I wonder if the cockpit/aircraft wifi can be secure from hackers. I would worry about that if I were Boeing/Airbus. It may have to be a one way direction of data. That drone that Iran hacked and landed in Iran is just one scary example of going too far.

I'm sure there's a way to implement a one-way FDR transmission system or some encoding. After all, Boeing was able to certify the 787 with one network and a firewall versus two networks.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 103):
More than 25 million $ for AF 447 per this - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/ma...8Plane-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. To answer your point though i don't know how much the SAR costs, nor do i know how much it costs to outfit planes with features that are being talked about on this thread. In case you know the approx costs please share it.

Not only is SAR expensive, not finding survivors quickly can cost lives. IIRC there were a few crashes (e.g. JL123, Chile AF 571) where data like this would have saved lives, so unless a streaming system is extremely expensive (I doubt it), it would make sense to have it.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 114, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16054 times:

Okay. This is going to be a pretty comprehensive post, so my apologies.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 104):
To be sure, if they want to launch a fleet of satellites to support it, they can run into multiple billions rather quickly.

Indeed. To put some numbers in perspective:

$25 Million - the cost to find AF447.

$450 Million - Space shuttle launch
$250 Million each - DirecTV's new satellites in 2004 (they needed 4, and they only work over N. and S. America)
$40-400 Million - the cost to launch a satellite
$1.5 Million - the cost per year to maintain a satellite

2500 - the approximate total number of satellites in space right now.
66 - the number of operating Iridium telephonic satellites in orbit right now
$2.9 Billion - the cost of launching 66 new Iridium satellites
72000 - the number of worldwide connections Iridium can handle at one time (in theory! less in practice!)
48000 - the number of airplanes in the air on average at any time
36 - about the number of GPS transmitting satellites covering the globe
0 - the number of GPS receiving satellites covering the globe

So, basically, you'd need your own Iridium to serve the 48000 planes in the air, at a cost of $2.9 B plus upkeep. Compared to $25 Million (worst case) every decade.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
Well it depends on the solution right? GPS has gone from a military program to nerdy teenagers going geocaching or housewives trying to get to the grocery store for milk and eggs. That technology was developed in the 1970s and didn't becomes operational until the 1990s. Thats a long way in a short period of time. Can the technology be flipped now where individuals can send signals to satellites from reasonably priced devices instead of just receiving information from them?

The short answer is no. GPS is a set of broadcast satellites: it only speaks, it does not listen. All 6 billion people on earth can listen in to the GPS signal, and it does not know or care what the people are doing down below. You can have immense economies of scale in a 1-to-many system like GPS (or television) because it doesn't cost a dime more to transmit to one more receiver or a million more receivers down on Earth -- that cost is borne by the user of the device.

Not so with sats that receive. The cost of a satellite that receives signals from the ground grows with the number of conversations with the ground it is required to have. This is the bandwidth problem, and it is not one where we're just waiting for better technology, but rather it is a theory level problem that will always be present. It's like gravity -- can't turn it off.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
The more applications of the technology the cheaper the devices will get obviously.

Again, not really the case. As more adopters require services of the satellite constellations, you need more satellites. This is the bandwidth problem again.

Think about this: this idea is not new. ACARS has been around since the 1970s. Why is it, do you think, that we do not stream constant info from planes to satellites when the idea has been around so long, and technology has improved?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
There is not many things like this but launching payloads in space will becomes cheaper not more expensive in the coming decades.

There's really just no factual basis to back up this statement. On top of that, if we're willing to call it a failure after waiting 3 days, we're certainly not willing to wait decades.

I just cannot emphasize enough just how expensive space is.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 82):
But black box data doesn’t need to be streamed all the time “because 99.999% of the time you don’t need it”, suggested Gogo executive VP and general manager – business aviation services John Wade after my interview with Troadec. “If you see something that the avionics on board thinks is an event, you could request that data be streamed for a period of time, so a hybrid could emerge where a scenario is sent, and that deals with the issue of expense [concerns].”

I'd lastly want to point out here why I think the GoGo exec is wrong. You *do* need to stream constantly for any of this to be useful. If the system only transmitted when something went wrong, you have two problems: 1) the satellite would have to be available the instant something went wrong (as in, not being busy handling other users), and 2) if the first event that cripples the plane knocks out the transmitter, then you spent all that money and got zero. Remember, in MH370 (so it appears thus far), the ADS-B was transmitting its location and altitude just fine, then suddenly it wasn't. The fact that it was transmitting before the event is why we have any idea of where the plane is to begin with.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 16051 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 113):
Not only is SAR expensive, not finding survivors quickly can cost lives. IIRC there were a few crashes (e.g. JL123, Chile AF 571) where data like this would have saved lives, so unless a streaming system is extremely expensive (I doubt it), it would make sense to have it.

What people are missing here is that whatever knocked out the crews ability to communicate likely would have knocked out any automated reporting system because they would have to be integrated with the NAV system to provide accurate telemetry data. AF was fortunate to have not lost communication so the information kept flowing. MH appears to have lost everything.

The plane was transmitting data, then suddenly it wasn't.

[Edited 2014-03-10 14:50:40]

User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15969 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 112):
What satellites? There are millions of square miles of airspace not covered by communication satellites. The vast majority of satellites have targeted coverage. The ones that don't are usually used by the military and even they have coverage limits.

What do you mean? There seem to be more areas that are covered than not covered.
https://www.satcomdirect.com/main/aviation/swift-64/coverage.aspx

http://www.networkinv.com/technology/communications-sea/

What we need is some kind of inflateable & deployable buoy that inflates and deploys either when aircraft disintegrates in the air or when it impacts water. That buoy (assuming one can be designed that can survive water impact) would then float on water and start relaying emergency signals.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 117, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15995 times:

My sister in law has a chip on her dog so that if she (the dog) gets lost, she (sister in law) can me find her. If my phone gets lost I have a tracker that locates it. I understand the Ocean is a very big place and the operating environment is much more severe but I think we should be able to find a $200 Million aircraft that wants to be found in less than three days.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 106):
Most PR people cant work their way out of a closet and you want them to be technical?

I think its best to have a technical person trained to handle questions but I don't care as long as the job gets done. People, even engineers, are able to do two things well  
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 106):
Nevermind the fact that whatever prevented the crew from communicating probably would have rendered useless several billions in technology development and implementation to get what you want.

I don't even know what I am suggesting; I am not an engineer and I don't know what is possible and what isn't. Thats what this thread is about. What I do know is technology is moving fast. Near earth orbit is getting cheaper because the technology is more mature and before too long our rockets are going to be re-used (aka SpaceX Dragon, etc). I don't even know if this has to be new satellite technology. Maybe better beacons can do the job. More investment in ELTs maybe.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 106):
Anyone with any industry experience wanted her to shut up because on multiple occasions she stepped into areas where she was providing information that should only come from the airline and crossed into the area of speculation about probable cause.

Well I thought she did well. She explained technical aircraft components pretty well. Unions weren't happy with her but it became quickly evident that it was pilot error so I would think a pilot's union would be very vocal and unhappy. I would be too!

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 110):
Why would they need to launch a fleet of satellites just for this? I am no stallite expert but what about leveraging existing satellites that various contries have up there in space?

I am not sure they would either.

There is other things to discuss in this thread and I am disappointed that we are only talking about this component.

tortugamon


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15914 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 116):
What do you mean? There seem to be more areas that are covered than not covered.
https://www.satcomdirect.com/main/aviation/swift-64/coverage.aspx

http://www.networkinv.com/technology/communications-sea/

What we need is some kind of inflateable & deployable buoy that inflates and deploys either when aircraft disintegrates in the air or when it impacts water. That buoy (assuming one can be designed that can survive water impact) would then float on water and start relaying emergency signals.

The amount of dataflow required here would send that system crashing into the abyss.

You could deploy a bouy and the aircraft could still crash a thousand miles away, or it could not deploy at all.

I have a better solution. Grow some patience.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 117):
Well I thought she did well. She explained technical aircraft components pretty well. Unions weren't happy with her but it became quickly evident that it was pilot error so I would think a pilot's union would be very vocal and unhappy. I would be too!

Had zip to do with a pilots union. Incident investigations golden rule: Don't speculate, but if you do don't do it in front of a camera.

[Edited 2014-03-10 14:58:16]

User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15910 times:

Recently met with L-3 Communications.
They are very excited about the Iridium Satellite communications, that said the company is moving forward like Engineers rather than Business Development professionals from a development perspective. They see the opportunity for Black-Box type transmissions to supply data points on a ongoing stream. The biggest argument appears to be pilot performance, and union considerations if flight data would be monitored in a stream basis. (In other words less efficient pilots would then be more obvious to the carrier through data tracking.)

The thought process is the airlines could monitor characteristics and track the most efficient use of the aircraft for things like fuel economy. From a black box perspective the technology is already there to instantaneously transfer all flight data in a streaming format to satellite.

For the lost flight, all data could have been transfered through Iridium satellite showing everything until acft no longer was flying. the system could operate as long as an antenna and back-up battery still existed. In the event of a disintegrating aircraft there still would have been milliseconds of data transfer as the data no longer became available.



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 120, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15843 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 119):
Recently met with L-3 Communications.
They are very excited about the Iridium Satellite communications

Of course they are. Imagine the revenue stream from tens of thousands of aircraft transmitting massive amounts of data every day.

Bandwidth is the larger problem with Iridium. With a max of 10Kbps I'd imagine the overall size of the data pack is a larger issue.

[Edited 2014-03-10 15:07:04]

User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15709 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 114):
I just cannot emphasize enough just how expensive space is.

DLX,

Note sure why you are highlighting the costs involved to justify why not to put some kind of device that can improve chances of locating wreckage on a timely basis. And you suggested earlier that you would be for it if it was helping prevent crashes. So let me put forth some arguments then -

1) In the past; crashes over water or water/marsh combinations have proved that people can survive - Hudson River; the crash in the everglades (Easter Airlines 401). We can't rule out the fact that a few people could have survived MH 307 till we really reach the wreckage or bodies and the coroner determine the time and circumstances of death.

2) Have you thought about the costs involved to provide IFE and other services like wifi to passengers? I am guessing that there is additional fuel cost to lug that extra weight of all that equipment for IFE & WiFi each time a plane is in the air.

3) Thirdly and most importantly manufacturers spend huge amounts of money to design flotation devices (seat cushions, life rafts, life vests etc.) and airlines spend money on extra fuel needed to carry around all that weight...ALL for the purpose of sustaining the life of those POTENTIAL survivors of a crash over water. Going by your logic this does not prevent crashes so why bother with all this and why spend the money?


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 122, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15651 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 112):
Just so you understand the reality here. AF 447 crashed 400 miles from land. What boat or rotorcraft do you propose they use to get there inside of 12 hours in poor weather to perform a successful search and rescue? The fastest ship, assuming its already at the closest land point to the crash site, would take over 10 hours to get there in clear weather.

So every future crash will occur at least 400 miles from land, your arguments are getting really ridiculous.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 112):
What satellites? There are millions of square miles of airspace not covered by communication satellites. The vast majority of satellites have targeted coverage. The ones that don't are usually used by the military and even they have coverage limits.

What part of the world is outside of GPS coverage? They use it in Antarctica.
All GPS satelites are dual use.

And it is not only GPS, there are
GlONASS, Russia, is also offered commercial and has worldwide coverage.
Galileo, Europe will reach worldwide coverage 2019.
Than there is a limited Chinese system, Indian System and Japanese system.

In times of peace all of them offer commercial use.

The needed information could be send as a burst of information triggered manually or automatically in certain flight situations acting as a Mayday at the same time, initiating prompt respond by SAR.
It could keep sending at least the 3D position until the airplane hits ground or the water or explodes in the air.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15497 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
1) In the past; crashes over water or water/marsh combinations have proved that people can survive - Hudson River; the crash in the everglades (Easter Airlines 401). We can't rule out the fact that a few people could have survived MH 307 till we really reach the wreckage or bodies and the coroner determine the time and circumstances of death.

This plane was at 36,000 feet.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
2) Have you thought about the costs involved to provide IFE and other services like wifi to passengers? I am guessing that there is additional fuel cost to lug that extra weight of all that equipment for IFE & WiFi each time a plane is in the air.

Again, these use targeted coverage (and from the ground no less). They are also paid for by users. The cost of a continuous stream of data and a satellite network to support this to an airline are not the same as providing IFE. There's a reason gogo costs you and 100 other people on a plane $20 a pop and there is a reason it is not a global system.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
3) Thirdly and most importantly manufacturers spend huge amounts of money to design flotation devices (seat cushions, life rafts, life vests etc.) and airlines spend money on extra fuel needed to carry around all that weight...ALL for the purpose of sustaining the life of those POTENTIAL survivors of a crash over water. Going by your logic this does not prevent crashes so why bother with all this and why spend the money?


This aircraft stopped transmitting any and all information. This plane went dark, and it did so for a reason. The buoy idea, while noble, also has its flaws. It would presumably deploy and parachute down at the first instance of a problem (a design that would be desirable to keep it from being destroyed in an impact) which could easily be hundreds of miles from the crash site. Such a scenario would be just as misleading as a bad radar track.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 122):

All GPS satelites are dual use.

GPS Satellites do not track objects. GPS receivers interrogate the satellite signal to determine the location of the receiver.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 122):
So every future crash will occur at least 400 miles from land, your arguments are getting really ridiculous.

Those are the only types of crashes (wide open spaces not covered by some form of radar or within range of data reception) where the ability to transmit location for search and rescue would be a need.

[Edited 2014-03-10 15:48:26]

User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 124, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15447 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 114):
$25 Million - the cost to find AF447.

The cost of the one ship, the Alucia, searching with the three automated submarines for the black box, was 25 Mill USD, not the cost of the whole search.

Repeating your number does not make it right.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15395 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):
This plane was at 36,000 feet.

Well, no one knows what happened after that plane was at 36,000 feet right? My gut feeling says that something bad happened and no one survived. But, each crash throws surprises at us, so who knows about this one?


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 126, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15399 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 113):
IIRC there were a few crashes (e.g. JL123, Chile AF 571) where data like this would have saved lives

Those guys didn't have ADS-B back then. ADS-B would probably do the trick today, for a crash on land.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
Yes the ONE ship the Alucia searching for the black box did cost more than 25 million USD, and she allready knew were about to search after others had located the debris.

I'm not sure if your reading or my reading is the correct one. I do know this: the entire Coast Guard spends about $680 Million a year on search and rescue, assisting about 120 people a day. http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/pay-for-search-and-rescue1.htm Now imagine having to do that for a handful of event per decade - it would cost dramatically less. So, no matter how you cut it, search and rescue won't cost anywhere near as much as a satellite system would.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
Business jet rates are between 2.400 and 5.500 USD

Apples and oranges. You're paying for luxury in a biz-jet. But nonetheless, the article I cited earlier says a C-130 costs about $7600 an hour. So, if you ran it for 18 hours a day for a year, it would cost you about $50 M. Of course, you wouldn't use something so expensive as a plane to conduct your search after a couple days. Boats are dramatically less expensive. $25 M is probably right in the correct ballpark after all.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
“It’s ridiculous,” Peter Goelz says. “There is absolutely no reason not to have live-streaming data.”

We've discussed the pros and cons here already. I'm not sure Mr. Goelz is a satellite guy.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
“So it’s possible that some of them were still alive?” I asked.
Sarmento nodded. “Most died on impact,” he said. “Some could have survived.”

Another poster has noted that even if some were alive at impact, none would have been alive by the time the fastest ship could have arrived from land.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 116):
What we need is some kind of inflateable & deployable buoy that inflates and deploys either when aircraft disintegrates in the air or when it impacts water.

I don't know if it's urban myth or not, but if American Airlines took one piece of tomato off of all the first class meals in order to save money on weight, how do you think the airlines will take to having to carry additional equipment around on all their planes just in case they crash into the sea?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 117):

My sister in law has a chip on her dog so that if she (the dog) gets lost, she (sister in law) can me find her

Actually, this device is one of the biggest frauds in the pet world. (They got me too, btw!!) The device does not track your dog. Rather, if your dog is lost, and someone kind takes the dog to a vet, the vet can scan the dog and the device will tell the vet who owns the dog.

OR, you can just put a collar on the dog with your name on it.

Quoting billreid (Reply 119):
For the lost flight, all data could have been transfered through Iridium satellite showing everything until acft no longer was flying. the system could operate as long as an antenna and back-up battery still existed. In the event of a disintegrating aircraft there still would have been milliseconds of data transfer as the data no longer became available.

Now, here is something that actually gives me a thought that I DO like: forget about satellites - if the black box started transmitting the actual data after a crash, instead of just a ping to help people figure out where it was, you could start downloading information about the crash even if you never recovered the black box. You'd just have to be reasonably near it.

With that said, as Honeywell (the makers of most of the black box) said during the AF447 investigation, they've never not found one of their boxes.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
Note sure why you are highlighting the costs involved to justify why not to put some kind of device that can improve chances of locating wreckage on a timely basis

I'm not sure why you're not highlighting the cost!  

As for "timely basis," I've explained my thought process on this that getting it NOW is a want. It is not remotely a need. The search does not undo or prevent a crash, and a crash over water is extremely unlikely to be survivable.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
1) In the past; crashes over water or water/marsh combinations have proved that people can survive - Hudson River; the crash in the everglades (Easter Airlines 401).

I really don't think it's appropriate to consider those comparable to an open sea crash. Both crashes had non-passenger witnesses. The Hudson River ditching was caught on security cameras! And both crashes were planes in a shallow, landing-style event that left the planes relatively intact. US1549 continued to transmit in the water, even.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
We can't rule out the fact that a few people could have survived MH 307 till we really reach the wreckage or bodies and the coroner determine the time and circumstances of death.

I agree (part of why I said in reply 1 that this thread is premature!) but answer me this: how much money will you spend to save a life? And before you say "any amount" realize that at some point, the cost will make it too expensive to actually board an airplane.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
2) Have you thought about the costs involved to provide IFE and other services like wifi to passengers?

Yes. My understanding is that these services work over land and do not involve satellite communication.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
I am guessing that there is additional fuel cost to lug that extra weight of all that equipment for IFE & WiFi each time a plane is in the air.

The people who use the service (in most cases) pay extra.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
3) Thirdly and most importantly manufacturers spend huge amounts of money to design flotation devices (seat cushions, life rafts, life vests etc.) and airlines spend money on extra fuel needed to carry around all that weight...ALL for the purpose of sustaining the life of those POTENTIAL survivors of a crash over water. Going by your logic this does not prevent crashes so why bother with all this and why spend the money?

No, that is not my logic. My logic is that after you have all that other stuff that you just described that actually DOES save lives in survivable accidents, it does not make sense to spend billions more on things that would only serve to get to a wreck quicker in nonsurvivable accidents.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 122):
What part of the world is outside of GPS coverage? They use it in Antarctica.
All GPS satelites are dual use.

GPS is not a communications satellite system. What do you mean by "dual use?" If you mean communication, I'm sorry but you are mistaken.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):
The buoy idea, while noble

Hear hear! I actually am a little concerned that I come off as saying "thou shalt not have ideas!" I love the new ideas, especially out of the box ones. But we'd be doing each other a disservice if we didn't debate why the idea might not work.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 127, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15378 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 124):

Quoting D L X (Reply 114):
$25 Million - the cost to find AF447.

The cost of the one ship, the Alucia, searching with the three automated submarines for the black box, was 25 Mill USD, not the cost of the whole search.

Repeating your number does not make it right.

Fine. How does $40 M sound to you?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/05/26/black.box.air.france/

Still WAAAY less than these alternative systems.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15269 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):
This plane was at 36,000 feet.

Nobody knows what happened, so we do not know when it disintegrated, so that information does not matter.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):
Again, these use targeted coverage. They are also paid for by users. The cost of a continuous stream of data and a satellite network to support this to an airline are not the same as providing IFE. There's a reason gogo costs you and 100 other people on a plane $20 a pop and there is a reason it is not a global system.

There are certain types of airplanes offering a constant stream of technical information today, one of them for example the A380. So it seems to be possible.
Anyway one would not need a constant stream, a burst or several burst of information in an emergency from an automated system would do.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):
This aircraft stopped transmitting any and all information. This plane went dark, and it did so for a reason. The buoy idea, while noble, also has its flaws. It would presumably deploy and parachute down at the first instance of a problem (a design that would be desirable to keep it from being destroyed in an impact) which could easily be hundreds of miles from the crash site. Such a scenario would be just as misleading as a bad radar track.

How do you know what happened, have you found the airplane and done the investigation? How do you know that an automated system would not have got the information out?

AF447 flying at a similar height disintegrated on contact with the water.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11269 posts, RR: 52
Reply 129, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15254 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 128):
Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):
This plane was at 36,000 feet.

Nobody knows what happened, so we do not know when it disintegrated, so that information does not matter.

We know that this situation was NOTHING like US1549 or EA401.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 128):
There are certain types of airplanes offering a constant stream of technical information today, one of them for example the A380. So it seems to be possible.

Are you talking about ACARS?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBackSeater From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 130, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15255 times:

Before rushing to a technical solution, may be we should step back and agree on some requirements.

Given the uncertainty around MH370, I propose that it would be desirable to have a system that can track an aircraft in flight but only in case of an "emergency". Here is a first set of requirements that come to mind:

i) the AET (Airborne Emergency Tracker) should be a stand-alone, autonomous system
ii) the state of emergency that triggers operation of the AET should be detected autonomously by the AET
iii) positioning and transmission of such positions should operate independently of the aircraft avionics suite, data buses, power buses, ...
iv) the AET should be physically unreachable from within the aircraft (cabin and cockpit)
v) the cockpit should not have any mechanism to logically disable or power down the AET
vi) the AET would transmit for at most one hour (as by that time, other assets may be used to track the aircraft)
vii) positioning and transmission should have a fair chance of success even if the AET is attached to only a fragment of the fuselage while tumbling down (for best results, two or more AETs might be be attached to the same aircraft)
viii) volume, weight and price should be low, in particular the cost of operation should be low
ix) the AET mission would stop once the aircraft is on the ground/water at which point the ELT is expected to take over.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15193 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 128):
How do you know what happened, have you found the airplane and done the investigation? How do you know that an automated system would not have got the information out?

We know it stopped transmitting. That's not speculation. I have no idea what happened after that nor have I suggested otherwise.


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 750 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15176 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):

Again, these use targeted coverage. They are also paid for by users. The cost of a continuous stream of data and a satellite network to support this to an airline are not the same as providing IFE. There's a reason gogo costs you and 100 other people on a plane $20 a pop and there is a reason it is not a global system.

Most installations I've seen charge ~$5 for wifi use, and are not used by more than 20% of the pax. In a group of 150 pax, this works out to 30 pax for $180. Why is it that a position report of a few kilobytes (maximum) every 5 seconds would chew up so much bandwidth?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):
Quoting 747megatop (Reply 121):
1) In the past; crashes over water or water/marsh combinations have proved that people can survive - Hudson River; the crash in the everglades (Easter Airlines 401). We can't rule out the fact that a few people could have survived MH 307 till we really reach the wreckage or bodies and the coroner determine the time and circumstances of death.

This plane was at 36,000 feet.

Right, that doesn't mean the next one will be as well.


User currently offlinecytz_pilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15162 times:

Quoting bmw770xli (Reply 97):
What is wrong with (most) of you??? The problem is we don't know where the aircraft is therefore we don't know what went wrong. This thread is simply stating that with all the technology we have nowadays, there should be better ways of tracking aircraft. Am I the only one to see this? No no wonder society moves so slowly, most of you are arguing that we don't know what went wrong. Well, duh, because the aircraft is missing. Why don't we know where the aircraft is? Because we haven't implemented better tracking technology. Idiots.

Welcome to Airliners.net! What's 'wrong' with most of us is that we have no idea what happened to the aircraft. It could very well be that the reason we can't find it is because something happened to it that specifically has made it hard to find.

Obviously the aircraft tracking/search & rescue systems currently in place should be looked at in detail (and I'm sure they will as a result of the investigation), but until we know the specifics of what made the aircraft disappear in the first place, we won't know where the systems failed, and where they need changing.


User currently onlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1411 posts, RR: 2
Reply 134, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15021 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 123):
Those are the only types of crashes (wide open spaces not covered by some form of radar or within range of data reception) where the ability to transmit location for search and rescue would be a need.

The radar did help a lot in this case with finding the debris. Try again.

Quoting D L X (Reply 126):
Yes. My understanding is that these services work over land and do not involve satellite communication.

They do work over sea and include a satellite receiver.

Quoting D L X (Reply 126):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
Yes the ONE ship the Alucia searching for the black box did cost more than 25 million USD, and she allready knew were about to search after others had located the debris.

I'm not sure if your reading or my reading is the correct one. I do know this: the entire Coast Guard spends about $680 Million a year on search and rescue, assisting about 120 people a day. http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/pay-for-search-and-rescue1.htm Now imagine having to do that for a handful of event per decade - it would cost dramatically less. So, no matter how you cut it, search and rescue won't cost anywhere near as much as a satellite system would.

The mission costs of the coast guard regarding SAR are 915 Mill USD in 2013 straight out of the budget.
An airliner going down at sea would include the Coastguard, the Navy and every military and civil ship and boat near to that area. And usually there are more that one nation looking

Quoting D L X (Reply 126):
I agree (part of why I said in reply 1 that this thread is premature!) but answer me this: how much money will you spend to save a life? And before you say "any amount" realize that at some point, the cost will make it too expensive to actually board an airplane.

How much money would you like to save by ignoring a life.

I think the main difference between us that you imagine Billions of USD cost and I assume 10.000 to 20.000 USD equipment per plane and perhaps a 1.000 or 2.000 per year for the communication set up.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15022 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 129):
We know that this situation was NOTHING like US1549 or EA401.

We know nothing about this situation to be specific. All we know is that with the best technology available we are not able to locate a missing aircraft after 3 days with 40 ships and 25+ aircraft searching. And BTW, Chinese Satellites have now joined the search - http://www.scmp.com/news/china/artic...ites-deployed-search-missing-plane


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 136, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14938 times:

A long article about the limitations of ELTs and ADS-B and it praises a technology branded Spider S3.

The theme of the article is that there is better technology out there and it isn't being widely used:

http://www.byliner.com/read/michael-...e=15e524aac2157642e6d3df48f591435f

No new satellites and each of the devices are about $1,000.

a quote from the article:

Quote:
...But no federal law requires them to, and installation of a new unit costs of up to $2,000. Says agency spokeswoman Alison Duquette: “The FAA’s position is that 406 ELTs are superior, but their cost [to the pilots] would not justify mandating them.” To date, only about 25,000 general aviation aircraft have upgraded units. Translation: Of the 224,172 active general aviation aircraft in the United States, about 90 percent operate with an emergency beacon that transmits its distress signal over a frequency that is not listened to. If one of these aircraft should crash, hearing its ELT is a matter of pure luck. A passing pilot might pick up the signal—but only if he or she happens to be tuned to the frequency.

tortugamon

[Edited 2014-03-10 16:33:27]

User currently offlineBackSeater From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 137, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 14900 times:

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 135):
All we know is that with the best technology available

I suggest saying instead "with the technology currently used by commercial aircraft"
More could be done with today's technology but it is not mandated today. MH370 might help trigger some progress.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 138, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14525 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 134):
The radar did help a lot in this case with finding the debris. Try again.

Which tells you they were close enough to benefit from radar and that they continued to transmit information on some level that could be received. Never mind the fact that this ability didn't save a single life. To this point we have no information to lead us to believe that the same thing occurred with MH. It's entirely possible that they have some information and are simply not sharing it because the search is more important that satisfying the 30 second news cycle.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 134):

How much money would you like to save by ignoring a life.

Machines have inherent risk. All you can do is minimize risk. If you wanted to ensure that no one ever died then you would simply have to stop flying, driving, crossing a street, riding a bus or a train, living in a house that could burn, or work Ina building that could collapse.

[Edited 2014-03-10 17:27:55]

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17019 posts, RR: 67
Reply 139, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14426 times:

I'll start off by saying that real-time tracking has been improving for decades and will continue improving. However aviation does not change amazingly quickly for two reasons. 1. Change is expensive since everything must be certified up the kazoo. This is a good thing. The GPS systems in a plane are way more reliable than the cheap chip in your iPhone. 2. Product generations are very long, with models staying in production for decades.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 78):
The amount of data that the passengers of the 74 DY planes transmit is definitely more than let's say a 5000 planes would need if they'd report their location in a very simple and short message every 10 minutes or so.

As mentioned repeatedly, ADS-B already does this.

Quoting rolfen (Reply 80):
A dedicated system would be more reliable and performant, but if we want to do something cheap - In many cases, the systems are already there, or under development (ACARS, ADS, internet...), and all that is needed is to adapt them and to improve them to detect catastrophic events then send automatic broadcasts, and somehow making that mandatory, or at least recommended.

And how would you "detect catastrophic events"? If the event were so bad, the pilots would either know immediately or be dead. In either case the system is moot since they can make a distress call when the situation is stable or, again, they're dead.

Quoting D L X (Reply 86):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 84):
We have learned one thing again from MH370, it is necessary to have a system making it easier to locate a downed airliner.

Why is it "necessary?" This is an honest question in need of an answer before we embark on spending billions on doing something different.

Has there been an accident in say the last 30 years where we never found the plane? In the end, did it matter that we did not find the plane in the first 3 days of searching?

It's not "necessary" just because we want things now, now, now in this day and age.

     

Indeed. Why is it necessary? In the AF447, would lives have been saved if we'd known what was happening in real time?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):

Quoting na (Reply 67):
Something like that definitely. I mean, the AF A330 send out data so investigators knew rather soon that speed and attitude of the plane was totally out of normal. Why did MH370 not do that?

I believe it was confirmed today that MH370 had this capability as well. Why we have not heard the information from it is a question though.

MH370 has/had the capability, but this is a paid service for maintenance purposes that not all airlines subscribe to.

Would we have known earlier that the plane was in trouble if they had subscribed to ACARS? Perhaps. Would this have made the plane easier to find? Perhaps. Would this help in saving lives? Almost definitely not.

Quoting WorldFlight (Reply 107):
I didn't read the whole thread but I am sure the aircraft was equipped with Triple GPS/INS or GPS/IRU, HF as well as SATCOM, and Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS).

Certainly. And that equipment does not a bit of good if it stops working.

There's no magical way to keep tracking a plane that stops transmitting entirely except primary radar and that has its limitations. You can add all the gizmos you want but they can all stop working or be disabled. And you really want them to be disable-able since you want to be able to cut ANY circuit on the plane. Safety feature.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7184 posts, RR: 13
Reply 140, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14330 times:

Sat phones are already on all of my airline's fleet, I kinda figured it was already standard issue

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 141, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14291 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 87):
I am not a fan of status quo.

No one is accepting status quo.

Adam Air 574, SA295 and AF447 clearly demonstrated the system is not good enough.

The often overlooked part of the BEA investigation of AF447 is the lengthy list of recommendations for improvements in tracking and finding lost aircraft.

Several of those recommendations are under active research today - including 'burst' type transmissions for when an event occurs on a plane, such as the fellow you quoted just after me.

SAR - missing aircraft reporting and efforts to locate such aircraft are being actively worked by many companies and nations to improve the system. Tens of millions of dollars are spent on trying to make improvements every year.


Also understand oceanic SAR is not something activated occasionally for a missing aircraft. Most nations with extensive coastlines have at least one SAR operation under way at all times. Yes, most involve small boats. Which are actually harder to find than aircraft debris in most cases.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 105):
GPS could be part of the solution. The solution would need to know that it is in trouble, collect key data (like GPS), then communicate it. Obviously GPS isn't helpful without the other two items.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 117):
My sister in law has a chip on her dog so that if she (the dog) gets lost, she (sister in law) can me find her. If my phone gets lost I have a tracker that locates it. I understand the Ocean is a very big place and the operating environment is much more severe but I think we should be able to find a $200 Million aircraft that wants to be found in less than three days

That system requires an active cell phone network with towers close to the dog or cell phone.

My wife and I are full-time RVers. We will probably spend over 100 days this year within 100 miles of a major city - yet in an area with absolutely not cell phone or data network connectivity - in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. The worldwide data network is not nearly as comprehensive as many people believe.

Yes, something could be built to retransmit the type data you describe from aircraft.

One recommendation of BEA was to establish was worldwide standard requiring aircraft transiting over international waters to have an ACARS type system which communicates the aircraft position course and speed every few minutes. That airline operations centers set alert systems to identify non-compliant aircraft quickly. (AF maintenance actually first identified something unusal with AF447, and started Air Operations to begin trying to contact the aircraft.)

Quoting rwessel (Reply 111):
Orbits in the 12,000 mile range are never considered low.

Compared to the Geostationary orbits many folks assume GPS satellites are in, that is low.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 128):
AF447 flying at a similar height disintegrated on contact with the water.

Fractured - like a boiled egg shell - would be the words I use. But yes, the aircraft broke into several large pieces.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone mentioned cameras.

SAR grid searches are about spotting debris - yes - the Mk1 eyeball is used, and is really the best technology if visibility is decent. A human can cover a wide area, and make excellent decisions about what they see. I've seen photo reconnaissance imagery from mapping aircraft (15 inch film negatives that could identify individuals). It takes a huge number of man hours to search such film/ imagery and pick out important features. More eyes in aircraft is a better option, with higher tech aircraft on call to investigate possible sightings.

The gross grid search searches for haystacks. The specialized aircraft look at haystacks to see if they might contain needles. The surface ships retrieve the needles and see if they are the ones everyone is looking for.

The SAR being flown is a lot like mass causality triage. Since no identifiable debris has been found - the few photos being released are mainly to show how difficult the task is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the biggest problems with situations like MH370 and improving SAR in general is the international nature of the situation.

BEA made some very specific recommendations. Even in France, BEA has no power to impose requirements on airlines or other authorities (neither does the NTSB in the US). BEA certainly does not have the power to require an airline like Malaysian to make changes.

Getting ICAO to recommend such changes is a major political battle, and frankly national governments are almost always resistant to change 'imposed' by an international organization.

Then there is the funding issue.

Even after a perfectly valid and relatively low cost item is proposed, who is going to pay? The airlines, the various governments, etc..

Making a worldwide change to aircraft, airline and SAR standards is a political challenge, not a technical one.

However, governments like France, the United States, Australia, Japan, China and the UK need to step up and implement some of the recommendations from AF447 or propose alternatives. Then pressure can be pushed down the airline/ aviation authority food chain to other airlines/ nations.

No one should accept status quo.

But as you mentioned above - there is not silver bullet.

Just a lot of hard work making incremental improvements by a lot of very dedicated people.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14205 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 141):
Getting ICAO to recommend such changes is a major political battle, and frankly national governments are almost always resistant to change 'imposed' by an international organization.

Got that right.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13074 posts, RR: 12
Reply 143, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13942 times:

One idea could be an short burst message or a series of them that could be transmitted if an major and unplanned change. A sudden decompression, an erratic change in elevation or speed, engine failure, keep it simple to a few of the most severe events that should be known to others to help, get out of the way or if the plane crashes, we have some idea what happened or where it ends up.
Of course, even if not a disaster situation at first, it may mean the PIC and FO can concentrate on flying and someone else can help think through what to do to try to save the plane. Even severe turbulence, engine failure or problems with any flight controls could be known to make arrangements sooner for diversions and repairs.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 144, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13766 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 143):
One idea could be an short burst message or a series of them that could be transmitted if an major and unplanned change.

That is one of the recommendations by BEA working groups as a result of AF447.

There are groups working on standards for such messages, the triggers and transmission technology, along with the equally important airline operations department alerts and action plans.

As I noted above, once the technical requirements are agreed upon, getting over 100 different national aviation authorities to implement those as a regulation will be a big task.

More likely, the aircraft builders will incorporate the standards and programming into new aircraft - making the airlines liable for not using available technology.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 145, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 13723 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 141):
The often overlooked part of the BEA investigation of AF447 is the lengthy list of recommendations for improvements in tracking and finding lost aircraft.
Several of those recommendations are under active research today - including 'burst' type transmissions for when an event occurs on a plane, such as the fellow you quoted just after me.

I have not seen the list. Definitely would like it. It does seem like authorities like the NTSB can make recommendations all day but they don't have to ability to force compliance so another agency needs to step up if this is indeed what the flyin