6 ms·

There just isn't adequate satellite internet worldwide to trust that system just yet. Airplanes don't even broadcast their coordinates to satellites in many air

There just isn't adequate satellite internet worldwide to trust that system just yet. Airplanes don't even broadcast their coordinates to satellites in many airlines, despite existing networks likely (ie Iridium) being able to handle the small increase in data (if they kept the packets small - just flight number/lat/lon - and let the satellites figure out where to send and what time the packets come, the total size from all flights worldwide every hour could still remain under 200mb)

emdowling 10y ago
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 safety regulator of the airline's country of governance and is held for 48 hours, released only if an accident occurs). I don't put a server into staging use let alone production use without having comprehensive monitoring in place for CPU, memory, etc. Putting a $200mm+ aircraft in the sky without monitoring every single thing in real time with multiple layers of redundancy seems unbelievably insane.
- shpx 10y ago
  Royls Royce sends performance data of its jet engines over satellites. https://youtu.be/_30T6MqdSlw?t=43m19s https://youtu.be/_30T6MqdSlw?t=43m19s
  - ant6n 10y ago
    Wasn't that used to try to track that Malaysian plane that got lost?
    - vdernov 10y ago
      Yes, via Inmarsat data.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  >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?
  - justinclift 10y ago
    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) sounds like it would have uses too. Not just alerting for impending or actual failure. On the other hand, would doing this open up potential remote vulnerabilities for aircraft systems? That could have long term crappy-ness attached. :(
    - ryanlol 10y ago
      >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?
      - justinclift 10y ago
        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. :(
        xufi 10y ago
        What software would that be that the flight recorder box is running? I've always wanted to know. I've heard the OS Is some variation of a Linux distro
        10y ago
- stevep98 10y ago
  > 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 cost which the airline has to eat or pass on the cost to the customer. The way around this is to make it a requirement for all airlines. Then everybody has to eat the cost. You may not be aware but there is an effort in the United States to move aircraft from primarily radar-based Air Traffic Control to GPS-based. This requires all planes to be equipped with additional equipment to transmit their location, and there is a mechanism to transmit via satellite. It's just not a requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_%E2%80%93_broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan...
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    > 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.
  - jsjohnst 10y ago
    Except ADS-B is a shit show. Watch this video [1] and tell me if you really want to still trust it over radar. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CXv1j3GbgLk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CXv1j3GbgLk
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      For Center (high-altitude en route) operations, ADS-B is fantastic. Random, direct routing becomes much more possible, because there's an electronic box giving people the warm fuzzy feeling. (The "it's a big sky" theory would also work perfectly well here, but people feel better with a semblance of active control.) There are no plans to shutdown all ground radio based systems. Right now, to file a flight plan in "bad" weather, either your intended airport or your alternate airport must have a legal approach that does not require GPS.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  They should also install cockpit video recorders. A lot of accidents will be much easier to reconstruct what went wrong with such. For example, it could confirm who was at the controls, and if there was a struggle going on.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Typically plane crashes are very rare events. Even more rare are crashes from crusing altitude over water. MH370 doesn't change that. So if the proposal is to add new equipment to every aircraft in service, that is compared to the very rare cost of having to recover a data recorder, and the even more rare cost of having to recover it from underwater. Airlines don't see that as an economic tradeoff that makes sense.
technofiend 10y ago
It doesn't seem to be on Elon Musk's radar (no pun intended) but if his or Amazon's reusable launch platform really does make commodity launches possible then it would make sense for Elon or someone to put up Iridium 2.0. Maybe Google or Facebook will do it to bring internet to the masses.
- martindevans 10y ago
  SpaceX are working on a low orbit constellation to provide low latency satellite internet (for consumers). Presumably that could serve the purpose of an "Iridium 2"?
  - technofiend 10y ago
    Oh I stand corrected then. In my opinion between a lower cost competitor to BGAN, extending higher speed internet to undeveloped and underdeveloped areas I believe there is a great deal of pent-up demand. That's before things like mandatory internet-connected aviation transponders as mooted elsewhere in this thread.
- yankeehue 10y ago
  Iridium NEXT satellites, to be launched by a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, will be hosting Aireon’s ADS-B payloads. http://aireon.com/2016/06/01/harris-completes-production-of-all-aireon-ads-b-hosted-payloads/?platform=hootsuite http://aireon.com/2016/06/01/harris-completes-production-of-...
- jo6gwb 10y ago
  There is currently a company called Globalstar seeking permission from the FCC to offer satellite based internet services. The stock dropped 60% last week on rumors that they won't be approved but nothing has been confirmed.

emdowling 10y ago

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 safety regulator of the airline's country of governance and is held for 48 hours, released only if an accident occurs). I don't put a server into staging use let alone production use without having comprehensive monitoring in place for CPU, memory, etc. Putting a $200mm+ aircraft in the sky without monitoring every single thing in real time with multiple layers of redundancy seems unbelievably insane.

shpx 10y ago
Royls Royce sends performance data of its jet engines over satellites. https://youtu.be/_30T6MqdSlw?t=43m19s https://youtu.be/_30T6MqdSlw?t=43m19s
- ant6n 10y ago
  Wasn't that used to try to track that Malaysian plane that got lost?
  - vdernov 10y ago
    Yes, via Inmarsat data.
jsprogrammer 10y ago
>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?
- justinclift 10y ago
  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) sounds like it would have uses too. Not just alerting for impending or actual failure. On the other hand, would doing this open up potential remote vulnerabilities for aircraft systems? That could have long term crappy-ness attached. :(
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    >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?
    - justinclift 10y ago
      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. :(
      - xufi 10y ago
        What software would that be that the flight recorder box is running? I've always wanted to know. I've heard the OS Is some variation of a Linux distro
        10y ago
stevep98 10y ago
> 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 cost which the airline has to eat or pass on the cost to the customer. The way around this is to make it a requirement for all airlines. Then everybody has to eat the cost. You may not be aware but there is an effort in the United States to move aircraft from primarily radar-based Air Traffic Control to GPS-based. This requires all planes to be equipped with additional equipment to transmit their location, and there is a mechanism to transmit via satellite. It's just not a requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_%E2%80%93_broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan...
- sokoloff 10y ago
  > 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.
- jsjohnst 10y ago
  Except ADS-B is a shit show. Watch this video [1] and tell me if you really want to still trust it over radar. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CXv1j3GbgLk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CXv1j3GbgLk
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    For Center (high-altitude en route) operations, ADS-B is fantastic. Random, direct routing becomes much more possible, because there's an electronic box giving people the warm fuzzy feeling. (The "it's a big sky" theory would also work perfectly well here, but people feel better with a semblance of active control.) There are no plans to shutdown all ground radio based systems. Right now, to file a flight plan in "bad" weather, either your intended airport or your alternate airport must have a legal approach that does not require GPS.
WalterBright 10y ago
They should also install cockpit video recorders. A lot of accidents will be much easier to reconstruct what went wrong with such. For example, it could confirm who was at the controls, and if there was a struggle going on.
ams6110 10y ago
Typically plane crashes are very rare events. Even more rare are crashes from crusing altitude over water. MH370 doesn't change that. So if the proposal is to add new equipment to every aircraft in service, that is compared to the very rare cost of having to recover a data recorder, and the even more rare cost of having to recover it from underwater. Airlines don't see that as an economic tradeoff that makes sense.

technofiend 10y ago

It doesn't seem to be on Elon Musk's radar (no pun intended) but if his or Amazon's reusable launch platform really does make commodity launches possible then it would make sense for Elon or someone to put up Iridium 2.0. Maybe Google or Facebook will do it to bring internet to the masses.

martindevans 10y ago
SpaceX are working on a low orbit constellation to provide low latency satellite internet (for consumers). Presumably that could serve the purpose of an "Iridium 2"?
- technofiend 10y ago
  Oh I stand corrected then. In my opinion between a lower cost competitor to BGAN, extending higher speed internet to undeveloped and underdeveloped areas I believe there is a great deal of pent-up demand. That's before things like mandatory internet-connected aviation transponders as mooted elsewhere in this thread.
yankeehue 10y ago
Iridium NEXT satellites, to be launched by a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, will be hosting Aireon’s ADS-B payloads. http://aireon.com/2016/06/01/harris-completes-production-of-all-aireon-ads-b-hosted-payloads/?platform=hootsuite http://aireon.com/2016/06/01/harris-completes-production-of-...
jo6gwb 10y ago
There is currently a company called Globalstar seeking permission from the FCC to offer satellite based internet services. The stock dropped 60% last week on rumors that they won't be approved but nothing has been confirmed.