Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

31 years later, we found the flight recorders

operationthonapa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#31

Post by ryanlol »

justinclift wrote: post #25
jsprogrammer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Given the cost of an aircraft and the value it represents, surely the data cost is more than worth it. How does broadcasting to a satellite reduce current or future costs?

As an initial thought, being able to much more accurately locate missing aircraft sounds like it would be a cost saving. eg: * the many months/years of effort + associated resources for searching would be likely reduced * technical/procedural weaknesses that led to aircraft loss could be better analysed, hopefully leading to reduced further aircraft losses, reduced loss of life Realtime data (other than location) sou…

>On the other hand, would doing this open up potential remote vulnerabilities for aircraft systems? That could have long term crappy-ness attached. :(

Why should it?

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#32

Post by sokoloff »

stevep98 wrote: post #24
emdowling wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's truly mind boggling that airlines don't do this. Given the cost of an aircraft and the value it represents, surely the data cost is more than worth it. I hope MH370 has changed the mindset of airlines and aircraft manufacturers. I know that pilots are against live streaming, always on voice recorders in the cockpit due to privacy concerns but surely there are ways to regulate access to that (eg: it goes to the s…

> It's truly mind boggling that airlines don't do this. They don't do it because they don't need the data. Governments do, for when they need to do search and rescue. So, governments should make it a requirement. For a manager making a decision in an airline whether or not to use this service, he would have to justify the cost to the airline. If none of his competitors are using it, then he's just got an unnecessary…

> This requires all planes to be equipped with additional equipment to transmit their location

ADS-B (out) is not required for all planes, even after 2020. It's only required in class A, B, C, and some E, basically "wherever transponders are required today".

There will be a significant fraction of the GA fleet that will not equip.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#33

Post by ant6n »

_RPM wrote: post #15
jessaustin wrote: post #5

Will Wikipedia ever get responsive? [EDIT:] In other words, Wikipedia seems to be the last vestige of the dumb old "separate web for mobile" mindset of ideas like WML. Media queries are just better, and would prevent this inane "that link sucks for half of us; here's one that sucks for the other half" crap.

The reason for a separate mobile site is that we can transfer less data over the wire. mobile sites typically aren't as feature filled as the desktop sites.

Bandwidth isn't the issue as much as latency. Those collapsible sections where the content isn't loaded just mean I have to wait 10 times for 20s while trying to read an article, rather than once for 25s upfront.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#34

Post by ant6n »

shpx wrote: post #20
emdowling wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's truly mind boggling that airlines don't do this. Given the cost of an aircraft and the value it represents, surely the data cost is more than worth it. I hope MH370 has changed the mindset of airlines and aircraft manufacturers. I know that pilots are against live streaming, always on voice recorders in the cockpit due to privacy concerns but surely there are ways to regulate access to that (eg: it goes to the s…

Royls Royce sends performance data of its jet engines over satellites. https://youtu.be/_30T6MqdSlw?t=43m19s

Wasn't that used to try to track that Malaysian plane that got lost?

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#35

Post by justinclift »

ryanlol wrote: post #31
justinclift wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an initial thought, being able to much more accurately locate missing aircraft sounds like it would be a cost saving. eg: * the many months/years of effort + associated resources for searching would be likely reduced * technical/procedural weaknesses that led to aircraft loss could be better analysed, hopefully leading to reduced further aircraft losses, reduced loss of life Realtime data (other than location) sou…

>On the other hand, would doing this open up potential remote vulnerabilities for aircraft systems? That could have long term crappy-ness attached. :( Why should it?

If the software that does the sending has vulnerabilities in it, that would be bad.

Although we can all think of approaches to try to minimise/exclude that possibility... reality often has ways of showing up things people didn't think of. :(

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#36

Post by spullara »

ant6n wrote: post #33
_RPM wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for a separate mobile site is that we can transfer less data over the wire. mobile sites typically aren't as feature filled as the desktop sites.

Bandwidth isn't the issue as much as latency. Those collapsible sections where the content isn't loaded just mean I have to wait 10 times for 20s while trying to read an article, rather than once for 25s upfront.

Latency is almost always the killer on mobile (hell, on desktop too) rather than bandwidth for web pages.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#37

Post by jimktrains2 »

notatoad wrote: post #18
jessaustin wrote: post #5

Will Wikipedia ever get responsive? [EDIT:] In other words, Wikipedia seems to be the last vestige of the dumb old "separate web for mobile" mindset of ideas like WML. Media queries are just better, and would prevent this inane "that link sucks for half of us; here's one that sucks for the other half" crap.

wikipedia has a big "never change anything" culture that resists any design changes to the main site, but doesn't seem to care about the mobile site. more likely we'll see m.wikipedia.org become more desktop-friendly and responsive before we see it happen to "desktop wikipedia". (and really, the m.wikipedia site is quite nice to use on the 11" screen i'm reading on now)

> wikipedia has a big "never change anything" culture that resists any design changes to the main site, but doesn't seem to care about the mobile site.

Except for the deletionists. They like to change things!

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#38

Post by fergbrain »

puddintane wrote: post #27
raverbashing wrote: post #4

What's on the last picture is mostly casing. They seem to have found a magnetic roll that hopefully contains data, but there's some risk they found nothing

I am excited to see what the tape holds, hopefully it will give a bit of closure to the families of those lost.

It looks to be from a VHS tape. Also, a Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)/Flight Data Recorder (FDR) would likely be setup to record in a loop. You can do that with magnetic tape, but not in the configure it appears to be in.

I'll try to remember to look up what CVR would have been used for that plane when I get back to work in a week.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#39

Post by extrapickles »

feld wrote: post #11
drostie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Responsive design is the design ideal of not having two separate sites -- one for mobile and the other for desktop -- but rather just being able to visit one site and have its CSS dynamically adjust so that it looks good in all screen sizes.

If you can do it without adding a bloated JavaScript framework and adding tons of requests to a page load, sure. If you can't do that I'd prefer auto detection by the load balancer and redirects to the mobile site

You can do a fair amount these days with CSS thanks to flex-box, it handles the row based layout transition to column based quite well.

A benefit of using CSS is that it handles browser zoom and high dpi screens much better as you can use units other than pixels (eg: em/rem, vh/vw, %).

From a architecture point of view, you want to keep layout logic out of the JavaScript anyways as JS should be for interactions and other 'nice to have' behaviors.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#40

Post by RobertKerans »

feld wrote: post #11
drostie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Responsive design is the design ideal of not having two separate sites -- one for mobile and the other for desktop -- but rather just being able to visit one site and have its CSS dynamically adjust so that it looks good in all screen sizes.

If you can do it without adding a bloated JavaScript framework and adding tons of requests to a page load, sure. If you can't do that I'd prefer auto detection by the load balancer and redirects to the mobile site

Jesus, you don't need frameworks or sniffing, it's an almost all-text site with very minimal styling. It's almost more difficult to make it non-responsive. There isn't anything really on the desktop version that isn't on the mobile, so I'm not sure where those extra requests would be coming from.

Sorry for the the tetchy reply, I just find it nuts that, to get around writing maybe a page of CSS, people build and maintain an entirely separate site that has to be in lockstep to the the first, along with ever-reliable sniffing, and then say that is the simpler way to do it. There are several scenarios where it turns.out to be useful; this isn't one of them

Post reply on HN