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

61–70 of 73 posts

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

#61

Post by lttlrck »

nawitus wrote: post #58
RogerL wrote: post #47

I am by no means an aviation expert, but my career was largely built on things like putting GPS and modern radios into military aircraft, writing flight planners, and so on. I ask you to envision the logistics of a simple change. You want to implement X, and gee-whiz do I have some cool, new technology that makes it easy!! Okay. Let's start. If we make mistakes people die, and careers end. I'll let you draw your own…

If bureaucracy prevents new technology of being adopted quickly, then that bureaucracy actually decreases safety, even if it's goal is to increase safety. Yes, adopting new technology increases some risks, but also decreases others. The good thing is that usually you can have both systems on at the same time. If the internet connection and GPS fails, it's not difficult to fall back to the existing technology.

"If the internet connection and GPS fails, it's not difficult to fall back to the existing technology."

Even if there was no bureaucracy everyone involved still has to go through rigorous training before we get to the point where "it's not difficult" ...

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

#63

Post by tuxguy »

frik wrote: post #38

Can an aviation expert decipher the following data? MH370/MAS370 Boing 777-2H6ER Registration 9M-MRO Altitude 0ft Speed 471 kt Track 40° Vertical Speed 0 fpm Lattitude: 6.97 Longitude: 103.63 Radar: F-WMKC1 Squawk: 2157 source: http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/16:46/12x/MAS370/2d8... That particular airplane was delivered new to Malaysia Airlines in May 2002 and was involved in a ground mishap in 2012. While t…

from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/world/asia/malaysia-airlin...

"Malaysia Airlines confirmed that the missing aircraft had been involved in a collision with another plane in 2012 at the Shanghai airport that resulted in damage to the Malaysian aircraft’s wingtip. But the airline said the wing was repaired by Boeing and declared safe to fly."

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

#64

Post by hga »

jbg_ wrote: post #54
mikeash wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. My money is on "bomb" just because it's hard to come up with a maintenance problem that causes such a rapid disaster at altitude. It would have to be something that caused a massive explosion like TWA 800. Possible, but unlikely. The lack of a claim makes a bombing less likely too, but IMO less so than the improbability of a mechanical problem.

Sudden explosive decompression?

Bingo, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611

Or other examples that manage to disable enough of the flight controls but don't immediately break up the plane

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

#65

Post by spiritplumber »

twistedpair wrote: post #43
spiritplumber wrote: post #25

Aviation is stuck in the 60s because if it wasn't airliner stuff would all be automatic.

@spiritplumber, I can only assume you've never flown a plane or used a flight simulator (MS Flight will do). Today's airliners are incredibly advanced. In the 60's they didn't have Terrain Collision Avoidance. Try to fly the plane into a hill and alarms go off and tell you how rapidly to ascent. They didn't have automated traffic collision avoidance (TCAS). Fly two planes at each other and it tells one pilot to dive,…

Thanks!

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

#66

Post by mikeash »

hga wrote: post #64
jbg_ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sudden explosive decompression?

Bingo, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611 Or other examples that manage to disable enough of the flight controls but don't immediately break up the plane

As I understand it, you'd expect such a thing to happen during the climb. That's what happened with your linked flight 611, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, and it's what happened on e.g. Aloha 243. In general it would make sense that the failure would typically make itself known as the stress on the fuselage is increasing, not after it's reached a steady state. Not that it's impossible, but the fact that this flight was at cruising altitude for a while before it disappeared would seem to be an argument against this possibility.

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

#67

Post by hga »

mikeash wrote: post #66
hga wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611 Or other examples that manage to disable enough of the flight controls but don't immediately break up the plane

As I understand it, you'd expect such a thing to happen during the climb. That's what happened with your linked flight 611, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, and it's what happened on e.g. Aloha 243. In general it would make sense that the failure would typically make itself known as the stress on the fuselage is increasing, not after it's reached a steady state. Not that it's impossible , but the fact that…

Also true for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123, the event happened "at near cruising altitude". Although I wouldn't say a plane once cruising is entirely steady state, there are winds and such. But, yeah, as you climb stress on the pressure vessel increases and that's when you'd expect a flaw to manifest.

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

#68

Post by Spooky23 »

nawitus wrote: post #58
RogerL wrote: post #47

I am by no means an aviation expert, but my career was largely built on things like putting GPS and modern radios into military aircraft, writing flight planners, and so on. I ask you to envision the logistics of a simple change. You want to implement X, and gee-whiz do I have some cool, new technology that makes it easy!! Okay. Let's start. If we make mistakes people die, and careers end. I'll let you draw your own…

If bureaucracy prevents new technology of being adopted quickly, then that bureaucracy actually decreases safety, even if it's goal is to increase safety. Yes, adopting new technology increases some risks, but also decreases others. The good thing is that usually you can have both systems on at the same time. If the internet connection and GPS fails, it's not difficult to fall back to the existing technology.

You're knee-jerking in response to an incident that we literally know almost nothing about.

Aviation is a field where every major incident, and many minor ones are investigated and root cause is determined. The FAA and NTSB does fault tree analysis of crashes and publishes lots of material and bulletins to prevent similar issues.

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

#69

Post by twistedpair »

will_asouka wrote: post #46
twistedpair wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@spiritplumber, I can only assume you've never flown a plane or used a flight simulator (MS Flight will do). Today's airliners are incredibly advanced. In the 60's they didn't have Terrain Collision Avoidance. Try to fly the plane into a hill and alarms go off and tell you how rapidly to ascent. They didn't have automated traffic collision avoidance (TCAS). Fly two planes at each other and it tells one pilot to dive,…

Autoland is 60s tech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland . But TCAS and GPS-aware Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) are 90s, and automation vs maintaining flying skill is definitely a major challenge.

Indeed Autoland started deployment in the 60's, though not in a pervasive sense until decades later. Point on that was that we've had a lot of automation for in aircraft for some time. :)

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

#70

Post by bitcuration »

The only modernization needed is elimination of human pilot all together out of the loop. Then there is no training, union, or endless testing, as the robot is fail safe just like there have always been more than one engine in commercial airplane.

Purposefully staying behind the technology curve is not a "safe" strategy, aviation is not alone in this obsolete thinking bias, the same is seen in utility, automobile industry too.

Post reply on HN