Slashdot Mirror
Flight Data Recorders, Decades Out of Date
Tisha_AH writes "For the past fifty years the technology behind aircraft flight data recorders has remained stagnant. Some of the advances of cloud computing, mesh radio networks, real-time position reporting and satellite communications are held back by a combination of aircraft manufacturers, pilots unions and the slow gears of government bureaucracy. Many recent aircraft loss incidents remain unexplained, with black boxes lost on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, buried under the wreckage of the World Trade Centers or with critical information suppressed by government secrecy or aircraft manufacturers. Many devices still rely upon tape recorders for voice and data that only record a very small sampling of aircraft dynamics, flight and engine systems or crew behaviors. Technologically simple solutions like battery backup, continual telemetry feeds by satellite and hundreds of I/O points, monitoring many systems should be within easy reach. Pilot unions have objected to the collection and sharing of detailed accident data, citing privacy concerns of the flight crew. Accidents may be due to human error, process problems or design flaws. Unless we can fully evaluate all factors involved in transportation accidents, it will be difficult to improve the safety record. Recommendations by the NTSB to the FAA have gone unheeded for many years. With all of the technological advancements that we work with in the IT field, what sort of best practices could be brought forward in transit safety?"
well, they can run in parallel. as far as i know, nobody says you can't have a backup flight data recorder using mesh cloud pie-in-the-sky technology...
So the one place where there would be a benefit to all this nifty surveillance technology that keeps popping up everywhere else and for once, with no civil rights issues ... and they let it go decades out of date. Doing something useful must not be as fun as circumventing the Constitution for politicians.
Really if this were a private Internet connection with an expectation of privacy they'd have come up with 20 different ways to monitor it, 5 of which wouldn't require a warrant due to bad precedent. A flight data recorder has no concerns about privacy and such so it just isn't a priority. Nice. Real nice.
Tape is one of the best long term and reliable storage methods. As long as it doesn't burn (which kills any memory type), it's more stable in most situations than the modern memory devices. Remember, it has be stable in salt water, in high impact, humid environments, dry environments, wide temperature ranges, take electrical shock, etc.
People just think it sucks b/c it's old school and clunky.
Why would a black box need to use cloud computing or mesh networks?
Just because new technologies have emerged doesn't mean they are necessarily applicable in all areas of computing. My knowledge in this field is limited, but I just don't see the point of a twittering black box, or whatever web 2.0 meme is the flavor of the day.
Jesus had a UNIX beard.
"Many recent aircraft loss incidents remain unexplained, ....., buried under the wreckage of the World Trade Centers" - This has to be the dumbest statement of all time. I think everyone knows what happened to the planes THAT WERE FLOWN INTO THE WTC BY MUSLIM TERRORISTS. Fail.
Conservative, mod down for violating
The rabid tone of the summary is completely unsupported by the article itself. Does the submitter have any evidence that advancements are held back by unions, bureaucracy and privacy concerns? The article does not claim anything like that.
They are just proposing a replacement technology with a catchy name. The submitter is a massive troll.
held back by a combination of aircraft manufacturers, pilots unions and the slow gears of government bureaucracy
Does the article support the notion of the pilots unions fighting against modernization of flight recorders? No, it doesn't. Does common sense support such a notion? No, it doesn't either.
Really, this is not a place for union bashing. If you have an axe to grind, so be it. But don't try to wield your axe at every conceived opportunity, or you'll end up making yourself look silly - as you just did.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I don't live in the USA. But...
The USA sets the standard. If the FAA won't touch it, pretty much no-one else will, since their product will be useless in one of the top markets in the world, and I'm pretty sure the other major markets just follow the example of the USA anyway.
Also, indeed, it seems the experimental crowd grows smaller. I am 30, and by a huge margin the whippersnapper of the local EAA chapter. I'm not even that active, but I'm trying to get a plane built "someday". That's more than I can say for the rest of "gen-X". The sad part is, even though my composite plane will (hopefully someday) be light-years ahead of what the general-aviation guys are flying, it's still a design from the late 70's. There's not much "new" out there... The most radical guy I can think of is Rutan, and he's getting on in years now...
And that's the EXPERIMENTAL crowd. As far as I can tell, Cessna are only interested in stamping out their ancient designs for the rest of time. And why shouldn't they? the older aviation crowd wanna fly what they know... and the FAA are totally cool with that! I can hardly imagine any significant flying school not having a fleet of 172's. It's the status quo for the aviation guys, and status quo is all there is for them. I find this very irritating since I'm an IT person, and I want to see continuous improvement and experimentation.
Aviation had an age where people were free to try new things, and try they did. But these days propose anything just a little bit out of the box and even your local EAA guy starts telling you how crazy you are for not sticking to the "tried ways". It seems air-folk think that everything's been tried and any deviation from the set standard is to ask for death. If you get totally crazy, yes, I agree, you'll probably die, especially if you're "eyeball engineering", like many a self-styled builder is known to do. That's not what I mean here.
I feel that FAA certification has killed any innovation that is to be had in the industry. That is combined with a general lack of interest from young people in experimental flying (no, getting your com and bussing people around in a Caravan doesn't count). When the current (already oldish) generation of EAA-ers die, I'm not sure there are going to be significant numbers of people to replace them. I think, in about 15 years, I will be one of two EAA people left in my city, down from enough people to run the local EAA airfield by themselves. I cry for the day that particular initiative will die due to lack of interest.
> no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
Given that "Cloud Computing" as a buzzword is only about two years old, and has yet to receive a great deal of commercial deployment, I think we can hardly blame the FAA, NTSB, Boeing, Airbus, and airlines for not deploying it Right The Heck Now.
What does that even mean, to use "Cloud Computing" for the "black box"? Cloud Computing has about as coherent of a definition as the previous buzzword du jour, "Web 2.0".
SirWired
I agree that everything with safety implications should be subject of scrutiny. It's just that human factors are very widely misunderstood. You have mechanics who can inspect any flying hardware, but good luck finding a "mechanic" who can examine a pilot to determine if he/she is fit for flying that day.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Privacy concerns? Im sorry but if you are part of the operating crew of a modern airliner, the only privacy you should expect is in the bathroom.
Good-bye