Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Boeing 787s To Create Half a Terabyte of Data Per Flight

Posted by samzenpus on from the peanut-tracking dept.

Qedward writes "Virgin Atlantic is preparing for a significant increase in data as it embraces the Internet of Things, with a new fleet of highly connected planes each expected to create over half a terabyte of data per flight. IT director David Bulman said: 'The latest planes we are getting, the Boeing 787s, are incredibly connected. Literally every piece of that plane has an internet connection, from the engines, to the flaps, to the landing gear. If there is a problem with one of the engines we will know before it lands to make sure that we have the parts there. It is getting to the point where each different part of the plane is telling us what it is doing as the flight is going on. We can get upwards of half a terabyte of data from a single flight from all of the different devices which are internet connected.'"

48 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. internet-connected plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What could go wrong?

    1. Re:internet-connected plane by ls671 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hopefully, they meant a TCP/IP connection, not "Internet" connected ;-)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:internet-connected plane by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was hoping that too but the following quote seems to indicate there is some access from the ground.

      If there is a problem with one of the engines we will know before it lands to make sure that we have the parts there.

      I just hope they can only see information and have no control from the ground.

    3. Re:internet-connected plane by ls671 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just hope they can only see information and have no control from the ground.

      Yeah, right, it seems to ring a bell for me, let's see... OK, let's say: like having a read-only access to a web-site?

      Hopefully the plane pushes the data if it reports in real-time and the plane doesn't have any listening sockets accepting connections on some kind of wireless network. Pilots could also transmit problem reports through radio...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:internet-connected plane by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This isn't exactly new - Rolls Royce, GE and Pratt & Whitney all do "power by the hour" rented engines, which are permanently connected (allowing for coverage issues) to data receiver centers which manage them. If they need maintenance, are running hot or have a vibration issue (its amazing how much you can discern about an engine due to its vibration levels), the engine manufacturer can determine before the flight has even ended whether or not the engine needs that maintenance at that point, needs replacing, or can suffice until the aircraft can be rotated to a full maintenance center to be swapped out.

      On PBTH engines, its typical that the airline will be called by the manufacturer to report the issue before the crew flying the aircraft ever notices anything.

      Its also a service engine purchasing airlines can select.

    5. Re:internet-connected plane by ls671 · · Score: 5, Funny

      woosh...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    6. Re:internet-connected plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      wget http://www.vigrin-atlatic.com/flight/12321/manage.aspx?flags=down&gear=up&parachutes=deploy

    7. Re:internet-connected plane by theVarangian · · Score: 2

      Hopefully, they meant a TCP/IP connection, not "Internet" connected ;-)

      Whatever it is I hope it's an encrypted connection. That would put them one step ahead of the military.

    8. Re:internet-connected plane by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yep. Some engine manufacturers already monitor all their engines continuously, in real time.

      Rolls Royce was the first, I think GE have started doing it too.

      It's not a big leap from monitoring the engines to monitoring the entire aircraft.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:internet-connected plane by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instrumentation has been part of the stack of internet protocols for many years. It's called SNMP, and it's certainly possible to implement as read-only.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    10. Re:internet-connected plane by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not likely that it'd be streamed in real time.

      500 GB per flight, say six hours of flight time for an average flight, and I'm at almost 24 MB/s on data production. That's 240 Mb/s. 4G mobile phone can't do that, and when flying you'll often be out of reach of a mobile phone network. So you need satellite - while that may be able to handle the data, it's costing you an arm and a leg. Besides, most of the data is not that interesting.

      What would be viable, though, is for errors to be automatically transmitted. Like an engine that detects an anomaly, indicating it needs maintenance, that such a little bit of information is forwarded to the ground.

    11. Re:internet-connected plane by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I do seriously hope that too. Connecting flight critical hardware to an open network is asking for trouble.

      Quite frankly, if their CISO didn't veto that and got shot down, he should be fired. Out of a cannon.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:internet-connected plane by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Yup, makes way more sense to just get a 2kb event list sent during flight, and then the dispatchers can have the right maintenance team on the tarmac when the plane pulls in. They can plug in an ethernet cable and download whatever raw diagnostic logs they need to speed up the repairs.

      I could even see an in-flight request for specific logs to be sent, but it isn't like you can change an engine in-flight so I'm not sure how much time that would really save.

      Saving multi-TB of data on looped storage for such an expensive plane just makes sense. Bonus points if you can harden it to survive a crash. Streaming all that data in realtime, however, makes little sense. Even archiving it may be of limited use, but with planes being so expensive it probably doesn't hurt to have the data available "just in case."

    13. Re:internet-connected plane by acoustix · · Score: 2

      Well, technically the article only says that the large amount of data could be created. It doesn't say that all data created is sent over a network. I would guess that the system doesn't send all data, and the rest of the data could be downloaded once the plane has landed.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    14. Re:internet-connected plane by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you want to be the guy responsible for 500GB of syslog messages about every flight? Talk about making your eyes bleed...

      Mar 07 04:08:02.040 UA565 altimeter: altitude 36455.5 feet
      Mar 07 04:08:02.050 UA565 altimeter: altitude 36455.6 feet
      Mar 07 04:08:02.060 UA565 altimeter: altitude 36455.7 feet
      Mar 07 04:08:02.070 UA565 altimeter: altitude 36455.6 feet
      Mar 07 04:08:02.080 UA565 altimeter: altitude 36455.5 feet
      Mar 07 04:08:02.090 UA565 altimeter: altitude 36455.6 feet
      Mar 07 04:08:02.100 UA565 altimeter: altitude 36455.7 feet
      Mar 07 04:08:02.110 UA565 altimeter: altitude 36455.6 feet

    15. Re:internet-connected plane by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Someone should invent computer tools for dealing with large text files.

      Perhaps you could grep through a listing of sourceforge/user space and find such a tool.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Usage of data in a flight simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be cool if one could play back that data in a flight simulator to recreate the flight.

    1. Re:Usage of data in a flight simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sufficient data for playing back flights in simulators has been recorded by the black boxes for a couple of decades already. It's done to evaluate the crew's actions (and compare those with what they've been trained to do) as well as to test if alternative actions could've prevented the accident. A good example was Swissair 111 (in 1998) which had a fire on board and crashed before the crew could land the aircraft. The crew didn't even try to get it to the nearest airport as fast as they could because they wanted to dump fuel, prepare the cabin and were reluctant to land at the very closest airport at first since they wanted one with Swissair mechanics. As part of the investigation crews in simulators got exactly the same fire scenario at the same point and among other things tested if they had been able to reach the airport if they didn't dump fuel and land overweight. In those scenarios too, however, it would've taken too long from the point the fire was first detected.

  3. What could possibly go wrong? by stoploss · · Score: 5, Funny


    dave@console:~ ssh dave@hal-787
    [dave@hal-787 ~]$ echo "1" > /dev/landing-gear-doors
    echo: I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that.
    [dave@hal-787 ~]$ sudo echo "1" > /dev/landing-gear-doors
    dave@console:~ Connection to hal-787 lost.

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Admittedly sudo echo "1" creates the most powerful "1" there is, but it's still not quite enough to affect permissions checks on the redirection.

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Agent+ME · · Score: 5, Informative


      [dave@hal-787 ~]$ sudo echo "1" > /dev/landing-gear-doors

      You don't want to run echo as superuser; a regular user can echo 1 to the program's own stdout just as easily as superuser. The shell is what opens the output file (/dev/landing-gear-doors), so you either need to run the shell as superuser or have a different program as superuser which opens the file. Either of these will work:


      [dave@hal-787 ~]$ sudo sh -c 'echo "1" > /dev/landing-gear-doors'
      [dave@hal-787 ~]$ echo "1" | sudo tee /dev/landing-gear-doors

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2

      sudo -s is fewer characters than sudo bash.

      sudo make me a sammich

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just log in as root. no sudo needed.

      and then do
      shutdown -h now

      That gives the pilot something to do!

    5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I know, "sudo -i" is the best option. This way also the home directory is changed to /root, so that the configuration files (or history files) in the home directory of your regular user aren't suddenly owned by root.

    6. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you find yourself doing commands needing sudo, try this.

      sudo !!

      !! will repeat the last command.

    7. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Terrorists? No. People who know something that COULD be used by terrorists? Probably.

      Seriously, when did knowledge become a problem? I know how to build bombs. Hey, I even know how to build an atomic one. Getting that yellowcake is the problem. And the fact that I have exactly zero INTENTION to build one.

      I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people around here who would have a good idea how to start hacking those planes. Me included. Hell, I spend 99% of my working hours prodding and poking at various bits of hard and software trying to break their security. I may do that. I got the order from the owner (or, in case of corporations, of the person responsible for their security) of said hardware to do that.

      Knowledge is not a problem. How it is applied is. Knowledge is nothing else than the weapon that doesn't do anything wrong by itself, it matters who wields it an how he applies it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Internet != Network by scsirob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Connecting flight controls to "The Internet" would be the stupidest of all ideas. If they do this, anyone getting on board would be a candidate for the Darwin awards.

    I'm sure they meant to say that all these systems are networked together, using ARINC or other aviation network technologies.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Internet != Network by Christian+Smith · · Score: 2

      Connecting flight controls to "The Internet" would be the stupidest of all ideas. If they do this, anyone getting on board would be a candidate for the Darwin awards.

      I'm sure they meant to say that all these systems are networked together, using ARINC or other aviation network technologies.

      TFS says "an internet". A network -> network connection is an internet connection, regardless of whether it's routed to "the internet".

    2. Re:Internet != Network by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 2

      Another possible meaning is that it's purely dataloggers monitoring every device he describes. So there's no way to control anything, just a way to monitor it.

    3. Re:Internet != Network by rioki · · Score: 2

      True that, by implementing push only the plane is safe. Let's hope they implement proper authentication, since injecting fake error reports may not hurt the plane, but can definitely hurt the airline.

  5. Much less data than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sources say it's an XML dump. Maybe 100KB of actual data in there.

  6. interent != Internet by Prokur · · Score: 2

    there is a difference between internet (any internetwork) and the Internet (a worldwide publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks)

  7. Storage in the cloud by verifine · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally it makes sense, the plane (which is often in the clouds) generates data (which is stored in the cloud.)

  8. Re:Internet connected by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Funny

    They'd be better off using Monster Cables.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  9. Re:Currently producing zero bytes by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know that it's all that frivolous.

    Your average airline is running on razor-thin margins. They do NOT want a plane grounded for any longer than is absolutely necessary - because a grounded plane isn't earning any money. If an airliner can signal any faults several hours before it lands, the maintenance crew have advance warning so they know exactly what to look at (and maybe even have parts available) the instant it touches down rather than have it sitting on the tarmac waiting for parts to arrive.

  10. Engines at Rolls Royce by martin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have been doing this for years. They constantly stream data to RR HQ and theres a team of highly experienced people watching the data. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPIYBgZNrsg&sns=tw

  11. flights? what flights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We can get upwards of half a terabyte of data from a single flight". Well, provided they're actually able to fly, which is not the case, last time I checked.

  12. 787 On-Board Network by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In less then two minutes on Google I found this article with a description of the 787 on-board network: http://www.avionics-intelligence.com/articles/2011/06/boeing-787-avionics.html

    The Core Network, which is standard on the 787, uses computing servers and networks based on commercial open standards. It also has a variety of third-party applications to manage the onboard data flow to improve airline efficiency. The Common Data Network (CDN from Rockwell Collins is a, bi-directional copper and fiber optic network that utilizes ARINC 664 standards and protocols to manage the data flowing between the 787's onboard systems. It is based on Ethernet technology and enabled for avionics systems. The CDN has higher data rates, expanded connectivity, and reductions in overall aircraft weight when it is contrasted with point to point topologies, Rockwell Collins officials say.

    Another quick search on ARINC 664 yields the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics_Full-Duplex_Switched_Ethernet

    AFDX is a next-generation aircraft data network (ADN). It is based upon IEEE 802.3 Ethernet and utilizes commercial off-the-shelf hardware thereby reducing costs and development time. AFDX is one implementation of deterministic Ethernet defined by ARINC Specification 664 Part 7. AFDX was developed by Airbus Industries for the A380, initially to address real-time issues for flight-by-wire system development. A similar implementation of deterministic Ethernet is used on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. AFDX bridges the gap on reliability of guaranteed bandwidth from the original ARINC 664 standard. It utilizes a cascaded star topology network, where each switch can be bridged together to other switches on the network. By utilizing this form of network structure, AFDX is able to significantly reduce wire runs thus reducing overall aircraft weight. Additionally, AFDX provides dual link redundancy and Quality of Service (QoS).

    So both the Airbus 380 and the 787 use COTS hardware and Ethernet, as does the Internet. Although slightly sloppy, describing the network as an "internet" is technically correct. Asserting that the data is "bloated XML" or that their is bad scripting, spam or cookies involved is grossly stupid.

    I have worked with previous ARINC formats, and the data is very compact. It fact, it is positively cryptic, and generally you use software to turn it into a more human friendly form, like a line graph. So if there is a half terabyte per flight, it is all "real" data. Any of the posts that assume otherwise are a combination of arrogance and ignorance, which is typical for what passes as comments on Slashdot these days. Hence my sig:

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:787 On-Board Network by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      ...deterministic Ethernet defined by ARINC Specification 664 Part 7.

      That rang a token-bus bell, so I dug a little deeper. It seems they borrowed the token-bucket concept from ATM to get their deterministic behavior. Pretty clever.

      On a side note, how I wish we'd standardized on ATM-to-the-premises!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  13. Re:Currently producing zero bytes by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maintenance data is far more than a 'tickbox on a marketing sheet', it's the absolute bedrock for efficiently operating a large fleet of... well, anything. Cars, trucks, planes, etc. That airlines and airframe manufacturers can and do collect and analyze tons of maintenance and operational data is a large part of why air travel is so safe and (relatively) cheap.

  14. Re:What could go wrong? by mhajicek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even if you can't get at anything on the plane, it could be possible to hijack and falsify the telemetry. You could keep telling maintenance that the engine is just fine even though it's in trouble, so it doesn't get the service it needs.

  15. Re:What could go wrong? by halltk1983 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would prefer it if my aircrafts sensors weren't censored.

    /I'm so very sorry, I'm not normally a Grammar Nazi

    --
    Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  16. Only on /.... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...could a discussion about plane travel and safety descend into a bickering about the correct use of the Linux console...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re:Currently producing zero bytes by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    A grounded plane not only isn't earning money, it costs and arm and a leg to just stand there.

    I doubt they're happy with this.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re:Batteries.... by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 2

    You'll need some big Li batteries to power all that....oh wait....

    on fire

    But a very well documented fire.

    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
  19. Re:What could go wrong? by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As in most cases where invoked, the grammar nazi disclaimer is not necessary here. Noting a really amusing spelling error in a non-hostile way could never be taken as nazi behavior by rational beings.

  20. Re:What could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's Nazi, not nazi.

  21. Secure storage too by PPH · · Score: 2

    Don't worry. It's got battery backups.

    Oops!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.