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

Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

english.martinvarsavsky.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#11

Post by gmu3 »

andy_ppp wrote: post #6
KaiserPro wrote: post #2

It may be stuck in the 60's but HF radios work sure you can create an automated dispatch system on an iPad. How do you authenticate it? how do you tell if its not working? does it fail safe? Making safe software is hard, and well beyond the wit of your standard programmer. After all, can you gaurentee your software when the CPU is at 100%? can you say with certainty what happens when your CPU is hammered by all the i…

That's all fine, but the points he makes remain very valid, GPS tracking and weather info being the most valid. No-one knows why the plane went down, but arguing that technology advances can't make planes safer isn't true by the looks of the article. The fact that the security aspects of computer systems to help pilots is hard does not mean it can't be attempted successfully, the points made about drones ring true on…

In the US, most planes do have GPS, and it will be a requirement by 2020.

For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillanc...

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#12

Post by _pferreir_ »

Most modern aircraft have GPS receivers built-in. They are actually constantly reporting this information to ground stations [1].

I'm not saying that things couldn't be better (and I'm no expert at all) but I doubt that any of these new technologies would have saved MH370.

It's very weird, for instance, that the ground station that reports to flightracker24 lost ADS-B communication with the plane all of a sudden and it's pretty clear from the number of planes that you can see in the area that it is probably not a coverage issue.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#13

Post by akkishore »

KaiserPro wrote: post #2

It may be stuck in the 60's but HF radios work sure you can create an automated dispatch system on an iPad. How do you authenticate it? how do you tell if its not working? does it fail safe? Making safe software is hard, and well beyond the wit of your standard programmer. After all, can you gaurentee your software when the CPU is at 100%? can you say with certainty what happens when your CPU is hammered by all the i…

I think there is more pessimism than required here. We need not start with ATC directly sending instructions to the iPad thats controlling the aircraft (although something similar happens in UAVs). We can start with it displaying the required instructions along with the HF radio. Also the final judgement of obeying an instruction is with the pilot and he will responsible for the results.

In the era of having artificial hearts and pacemakers that are helping better lives, I don't think its as hard to even build sound and safe automated flying systems.

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#15

Post by joezydeco »

krisoft wrote: post #8

So having internet would somehow magically solve all the problems. Also it doesn't seem to be written out clearly, but there seems to be the implied assumption that Air France Flight 447 had no GPS tracker. Which is false. It did have, and automatically reported it's position at certain intervals.

Good point. On-board internet works great when the aircraft is at level and stable flight. It's a lot harder to transmit to a satellite in the middle of the ocean when the plane is gyrating and tossing all over the place (as in the case of AF447).

All bets are also off when the plane has had a catastrophic loss of power.

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#16

Post by rwmj »

sudomal wrote: post #4

I'm sure I saw a documentary a few years back where an aeroplane engine manufacturer had a control centre. The sole purpose of this place was to track minute engine attributes in real time, and alert their clients of future maintenance. Is that just on the latest planes?

A lot of airlines hire the engines by the (flight-) hour, and those engines are monitored in real time by the manufacturer. For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8111075/Live-mo...

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#17

Post by cinquemb »

gmu3 wrote: post #11
andy_ppp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all fine, but the points he makes remain very valid, GPS tracking and weather info being the most valid. No-one knows why the plane went down, but arguing that technology advances can't make planes safer isn't true by the looks of the article. The fact that the security aspects of computer systems to help pilots is hard does not mean it can't be attempted successfully, the points made about drones ring true on…

In the US, most planes do have GPS, and it will be a requirement by 2020. For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillanc...

ADSB is a whole new can of worms [0] just waiting for people to exploit…

[0]: http://dangerousprototypes.com/2013/02/28/defcon-20-renderma...

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#18

Post by adrinavarro »

Most modern airliners have satellite links (data and voice) with their dispatch centers. They also use the ACARS system to send and receive clearances (they can acknowledge by pushing a button). The old SELCAL+HF radio is no longer in use, except for backup.

Planes have GPS trackers. Not only their company knows where they are, the control center can too. In the case of the north atlantic track system, air control keeps a tight eye on speed, altitude and separation with very precise measurements, even as airplanes are far away from land.

I just fail to see the point of this post. I recently hitched a ride on the cockpit jump seat of a modern airplane for a Europe-East Coast flight and during that I saw the air traffic control knowing exactly where we were, and the pilots communicating via text message (ACARS) with control, as well as using satellite links to contact dispatch (via text messages), as well as satellite phone calls.

Pilots keep paper around them because pilots are there to maintain control, and paper is just another failsafe (with pretty good reliability record!).

Bonus: some planes can notice alterations in the flight dynamics and report an ice buildup. No pilot in this planet is going to let any external person input flight parameters remotely into their aircraft's system while they are in the air.

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#19

Post by bsder »

KaiserPro wrote: post #2

It may be stuck in the 60's but HF radios work sure you can create an automated dispatch system on an iPad. How do you authenticate it? how do you tell if its not working? does it fail safe? Making safe software is hard, and well beyond the wit of your standard programmer. After all, can you gaurentee your software when the CPU is at 100%? can you say with certainty what happens when your CPU is hammered by all the i…

> It may be stuck in the 60's but HF radios work

Really? When you have to worry about things like "Squelch" in order to deal with voltage supply ground noise? You are on thin ground.

The real problem with modern technology is that the pilot can't rely on it. Sure, a digital radio is $1,000 (or less). However, the digital radio that is FAA certified will be expensive and nobody is going to develop it because the FAA won't require it because all the pilots will bitch that it is too expensive.

Re: Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370

#20

Post by gmu3 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #2

It may be stuck in the 60's but HF radios work sure you can create an automated dispatch system on an iPad. How do you authenticate it? how do you tell if its not working? does it fail safe? Making safe software is hard, and well beyond the wit of your standard programmer. After all, can you gaurentee your software when the CPU is at 100%? can you say with certainty what happens when your CPU is hammered by all the i…

At times like this, I'm reminded of the Mars Curiosity's tech specs which are something like 200MHz, 256MB of RAM, 2GB hd,and 2MP camera and all the posts about how my iPhone is so much better. Well it was good enough to get to Mars and a hell of a lot more reliable.
Post reply on HN