5 ms·

Better question is what has been done to prevent the next MH370 and I bet the answer is nothing much, it took a back burner once the story was out of the headli

Better question is what has been done to prevent the next MH370 and I bet the answer is nothing much, it took a back burner once the story was out of the headlines. There are only a thousand reasons aircraft operators might want to know where their planes are and if there are any issues. I’m sure that the gps position and black box data could be streamed over radio and/or satellite.

_cenw 4y ago
MH370 likely had systems that enable tracking deliberately disabled by someone in the cockpit (or they all failed at the same time). That's not part of the threat model for good reasons.
- twelve40 4y ago
  seems quite addressable if that was the case? just don't let humans disable tracking, what's a sane use case for that anyway?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 4y ago
    For safety reasons airliners must have circuit breakers that allow disabling every electrical system in case of a fire, short circuit, or other dangerous malfunction.
    - outworlder 4y ago
      Any plane, in fact. Airliner or not.
chem83 4y ago
Huh? A lot[0,1,2] has been done considering how little we know about what has actually happened and a trivial search would enlighten you. Also, real-time streaming of GPS position for the thousands of flights in the air at any given time is not a trivial problem (but technology is improving and ICAO is pushing for such solution[3]). [0] https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/us/mh370-fifth-anniversary-malaysia-flight-370-space-based-global-tracking/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/us/mh370-fifth-anniversary-ma... [1] https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-04-10/malaysia-airlines-flying-regulations https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-04-10/malaysia-airli... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-probe-sparks-new-security-measure https://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-pr... [3] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184544/un-flight-tracking-system-malaysia-airlines-mh370 https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184544/un-flight-trackin...
- geysersam 4y ago
  Satellite phone text messages cost about $1 each. Sending one every 5th minute seems sufficient. That's $120 for a 10 hour flight. Seems technically quite doable with existing technology at a reasonable price? I imagine there are optimization that could be done to reduce the cost further. Big customers with constant rate usage can probably negotiate a more favorable price etc.
  - TheCondor 4y ago
    How much did they spend trolling random places in the Indian Ocean? There are some pretty substantial saving to be reaped just from the making the search more sane. I suspect that there are some extra costs making it "flight ready" and all that stuff, but the fact of the matter is that GPS chips are cheaper and more plentiful than ever, we have Starlink coverage in Antarctica now, and they're send more and more satellites up every week now. There are costs in securing it and then receiving the data and such but it all seems really inepensive compared to the planes, the insurance payouts and the search and recovery efforts.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    Iridium short burst data messages are much much cheaper in bulk than that :)
- lxgr 4y ago
  Given that the very flight in question had Inmarsat equipment on board, I think it's fair to be at least somewhat surprised by the lack of periodic location updates. But technology in aviation moves (generally for very good reasons!) at a different pace than in many other industries, and in this case it unfortunately meant having an operational satellite communications system on board (used for engine performance data telemetry transmitted to the manufacturer), but not having it wired up to ADS-C, an existing standard which allows automated position reporting over that same connection. Inmarsat has modified their offerings [1] since MH370: One free ADS-C position report every 15 minutes for planes that do support it (implying that transmission cost is a concern for not activating the option unless required for air traffic control via FANS), and the ability to piggy-back a position report onto a "handshake/ping" for those that don't, which would presumably have included MH370. For aircraft not equipped with any Satcom, some satellite constellations (including e.g. the latest generation of Iridium satellites) include payloads that allow direct tracking of ADS-B signals as well. [1] https://www.icao.int/Meetings/GTM/Documents/Inmarsat.pdf https://www.icao.int/Meetings/GTM/Documents/Inmarsat.pdf
fasthands9 4y ago
Feel like if we believe this was a pilot suicide then it would also be important to try to address that - though I'm not sure how unless we fully automated (and people liked that). There has been a German and Chinese flight since with 100+ fatalities where this happened. Given how few crashes there are on commercial flights its one of the biggest risk factors today.
- azalemeth 4y ago
  It's still a great shame that there is no recent update on the Chinese flight MU-5735. AvHerald last had an update in April 2022 and the whole thing has a strong feeling of media silence. I do wonder if it is a pilot suicide though -- that isn't yet confirmed. (0) https://avherald.com/h?article=4f64be2f&opt=7680 https://avherald.com/h?article=4f64be2f&opt=7680
- ggm 4y ago
  Risk has to be put in context. It's one of the biggest risks, where all the risks are fantastically low against number of flights and passenger/miles. All airline risks are lower than driving. I would have said the 787 lithium battery risk was more concerning personally. Or the 737 Max problem.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    In ‘97, there was SilkAir 185. NTSB was fairly certain that was pilot suicide. Another one was EgyptAir 990 in ‘99. In terms of fatalities and hull losses, pilot suicide is a much larger risk than the 737 Max. It’s made worse by outdated FAA rules that would have pilots grounded for seeking treatment.
    - toast0 4y ago
      737 Max had two losses in the first two years of operation. That's maybe a decade of commercial flights (at least suspected of) intentionally downed by an authorized pilot according to this list [1]. If you consider that the number of 737 Maxes in service was not that large, it's pretty clear that MCAS was more dangerous than pilot suicide. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot
antognini 4y ago
In the US two people must be in the cockpit at all times. If one of the pilots needs to use the bathroom, a flight attendant has to take their place in the cockpit until the pilot returns. This prevents a suicidal pilot from taking down a plane (or makes it much harder anyway). This wasn't a requirement on Malaysian Airlines at the time. (I don't know if the regulations have since been updated.)
- _cenw 4y ago
  That requirement became widespread after Germanwings 9525, which happened a year later.
  - nagonago 4y ago
    And even that requirement seems to have been dropped. From Wikipedia: "Aviation authorities swiftly implemented new recommendations from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency that required two authorised personnel in the cockpit at all times, but by 2017, Germanwings and other German airlines had dropped the rule." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
- dark-star 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - antognini 4y ago
    It feels a little more reasonable to me than removing your shoes or restricting liquids. Even if the shoe bomber had been successful, he wouldn't have been able to take down an entire plane. But it's trivial for a rogue pilot to kill everyone on board a plane. Since 9/11, cockpit doors have been reinforced so that it's basically impossible for anyone in the cabin to force their way into the cockpit. Ensuring that there are at least two people in the cockpit isn't too much of a burden and basically eliminates that attack vector.
    - 4y ago
klabb3 4y ago
> I’m sure that the gps position and black box data could be streamed over radio and/or satellite. Find My: Boeing 777
- coolspot 4y ago
  1) hide your AirTag in some airplane 2) name the AirTag “Boeing 777” 3) you have your personal Boeing in Find My to show off
  - outworlder 4y ago
    In the middle of the Indian ocean?
toast0 4y ago
> Better question is what has been done to prevent the next MH370 and I bet the answer is nothing much, it took a back burner once the story was out of the headlines. Sometimes they retire the flight number. Then it can't happen again. Looks like that's the case here [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/13/289800435/when-bad-things-happen-to-planes-flight-codes-get-retired https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/13/289800435...
Quanttek 4y ago
Your question is literally answered in the article: > Even without finding the plane, a number of lessons have been drawn from the disappearance of MH370. Many of the responses to the disappearance centered on the fact that in the 21st century, commercial airliners should not just disappear. In the interest of knowing where every plane is at all times, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) began requiring that all airliners manufactured after the 1st of January 2021 include autonomous tracking devices that broadcast their location once per minute. To give greater coverage of airplanes manufactured before that date, Inmarsat (which supplies satellite relays to nearly all commercial airliners) changed the frequency of its handshakes from once per hour to once every 15 minutes. The European Aviation Safety Agency began requiring that the “pingers” on aircraft flight recorders last at least 90 days, rather than 30. ICAO also amended its guidelines to require that airliner designs approved after 2020 include cockpit voice recorders that record 25 hours of conversations (instead of the current standard of two), and that flight data recorders either stream data to a location on the ground or be designed to float to the surface after a crash. (Like all ICAO regulations, these only come into force if adopted by the member states, which may take some time.) I think now, after another documented murder-suicide, there's also been a change in regulations requiring at least 2 people to be in the cockpit at all times. Other commenters point to additional changes
- EMM_386 4y ago
  Note that none of those things would "prevent the next MH370", only be able to locate the wreckage faster. There isn't much that can be done to "prevent" incidents like this.
  - wk_end 4y ago
    > I think now, after another documented murder-suicide, there's also been a change in regulations requiring at least 2 people to be in the cockpit at all times. This would help prevent a nefarious pilot from taking the plane down. Arguably, many of the things suggested might potentially have prevented Zaharie from carrying out his plan, assuming the scenario described in the article is true, depending on his motives: if the plane could have been intercepted in mid-flight, if he would have been found out almost instantly, his family wouldn't have been able to collect life insurance; if his motive had been less financial for his family and more about the intellectual challenge of getting away with the perfect crime, this too would have made his task more difficult. But that aside, when we say "prevent the next MH370", it's ambiguous: we could interpret that as "prevent a pilot from deliberately crashing their plane and killing everyone on board", or we could interpret it as "prevent a plane from vanishing", which has been devastating to families in its own unique and horrible way. In other words: locating the wreckage faster - or at all! - has value too, and shouldn't be dismissed.

_cenw 4y ago

MH370 likely had systems that enable tracking deliberately disabled by someone in the cockpit (or they all failed at the same time). That's not part of the threat model for good reasons.

twelve40 4y ago
seems quite addressable if that was the case? just don't let humans disable tracking, what's a sane use case for that anyway?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 4y ago
  For safety reasons airliners must have circuit breakers that allow disabling every electrical system in case of a fire, short circuit, or other dangerous malfunction.
  - outworlder 4y ago
    Any plane, in fact. Airliner or not.

chem83 4y ago

Huh? A lot[0,1,2] has been done considering how little we know about what has actually happened and a trivial search would enlighten you. Also, real-time streaming of GPS position for the thousands of flights in the air at any given time is not a trivial problem (but technology is improving and ICAO is pushing for such solution[3]). [0] https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/us/mh370-fifth-anniversary-malaysia-flight-370-space-based-global-tracking/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/us/mh370-fifth-anniversary-ma... [1] https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-04-10/malaysia-airlines-flying-regulations https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-04-10/malaysia-airli... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-probe-sparks-new-security-measure https://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-pr... [3] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184544/un-flight-tracking-system-malaysia-airlines-mh370 https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184544/un-flight-trackin...

geysersam 4y ago
Satellite phone text messages cost about $1 each. Sending one every 5th minute seems sufficient. That's $120 for a 10 hour flight. Seems technically quite doable with existing technology at a reasonable price? I imagine there are optimization that could be done to reduce the cost further. Big customers with constant rate usage can probably negotiate a more favorable price etc.
- TheCondor 4y ago
  How much did they spend trolling random places in the Indian Ocean? There are some pretty substantial saving to be reaped just from the making the search more sane. I suspect that there are some extra costs making it "flight ready" and all that stuff, but the fact of the matter is that GPS chips are cheaper and more plentiful than ever, we have Starlink coverage in Antarctica now, and they're send more and more satellites up every week now. There are costs in securing it and then receiving the data and such but it all seems really inepensive compared to the planes, the insurance payouts and the search and recovery efforts.
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Iridium short burst data messages are much much cheaper in bulk than that :)
lxgr 4y ago
Given that the very flight in question had Inmarsat equipment on board, I think it's fair to be at least somewhat surprised by the lack of periodic location updates. But technology in aviation moves (generally for very good reasons!) at a different pace than in many other industries, and in this case it unfortunately meant having an operational satellite communications system on board (used for engine performance data telemetry transmitted to the manufacturer), but not having it wired up to ADS-C, an existing standard which allows automated position reporting over that same connection. Inmarsat has modified their offerings [1] since MH370: One free ADS-C position report every 15 minutes for planes that do support it (implying that transmission cost is a concern for not activating the option unless required for air traffic control via FANS), and the ability to piggy-back a position report onto a "handshake/ping" for those that don't, which would presumably have included MH370. For aircraft not equipped with any Satcom, some satellite constellations (including e.g. the latest generation of Iridium satellites) include payloads that allow direct tracking of ADS-B signals as well. [1] https://www.icao.int/Meetings/GTM/Documents/Inmarsat.pdf https://www.icao.int/Meetings/GTM/Documents/Inmarsat.pdf

fasthands9 4y ago

Feel like if we believe this was a pilot suicide then it would also be important to try to address that - though I'm not sure how unless we fully automated (and people liked that). There has been a German and Chinese flight since with 100+ fatalities where this happened. Given how few crashes there are on commercial flights its one of the biggest risk factors today.

azalemeth 4y ago
It's still a great shame that there is no recent update on the Chinese flight MU-5735. AvHerald last had an update in April 2022 and the whole thing has a strong feeling of media silence. I do wonder if it is a pilot suicide though -- that isn't yet confirmed. (0) https://avherald.com/h?article=4f64be2f&opt=7680 https://avherald.com/h?article=4f64be2f&opt=7680
ggm 4y ago
Risk has to be put in context. It's one of the biggest risks, where all the risks are fantastically low against number of flights and passenger/miles. All airline risks are lower than driving. I would have said the 787 lithium battery risk was more concerning personally. Or the 737 Max problem.
- coredog64 4y ago
  In ‘97, there was SilkAir 185. NTSB was fairly certain that was pilot suicide. Another one was EgyptAir 990 in ‘99. In terms of fatalities and hull losses, pilot suicide is a much larger risk than the 737 Max. It’s made worse by outdated FAA rules that would have pilots grounded for seeking treatment.
  - toast0 4y ago
    737 Max had two losses in the first two years of operation. That's maybe a decade of commercial flights (at least suspected of) intentionally downed by an authorized pilot according to this list [1]. If you consider that the number of 737 Maxes in service was not that large, it's pretty clear that MCAS was more dangerous than pilot suicide. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot

antognini 4y ago

In the US two people must be in the cockpit at all times. If one of the pilots needs to use the bathroom, a flight attendant has to take their place in the cockpit until the pilot returns. This prevents a suicidal pilot from taking down a plane (or makes it much harder anyway). This wasn't a requirement on Malaysian Airlines at the time. (I don't know if the regulations have since been updated.)

_cenw 4y ago
That requirement became widespread after Germanwings 9525, which happened a year later.
- nagonago 4y ago
  And even that requirement seems to have been dropped. From Wikipedia: "Aviation authorities swiftly implemented new recommendations from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency that required two authorised personnel in the cockpit at all times, but by 2017, Germanwings and other German airlines had dropped the rule." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
dark-star 4y ago
[flagged]
- antognini 4y ago
  It feels a little more reasonable to me than removing your shoes or restricting liquids. Even if the shoe bomber had been successful, he wouldn't have been able to take down an entire plane. But it's trivial for a rogue pilot to kill everyone on board a plane. Since 9/11, cockpit doors have been reinforced so that it's basically impossible for anyone in the cabin to force their way into the cockpit. Ensuring that there are at least two people in the cockpit isn't too much of a burden and basically eliminates that attack vector.
  - 4y ago

klabb3 4y ago

> I’m sure that the gps position and black box data could be streamed over radio and/or satellite. Find My: Boeing 777

coolspot 4y ago
1) hide your AirTag in some airplane 2) name the AirTag “Boeing 777” 3) you have your personal Boeing in Find My to show off
- outworlder 4y ago
  In the middle of the Indian ocean?

toast0 4y ago

> Better question is what has been done to prevent the next MH370 and I bet the answer is nothing much, it took a back burner once the story was out of the headlines. Sometimes they retire the flight number. Then it can't happen again. Looks like that's the case here [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/13/289800435/when-bad-things-happen-to-planes-flight-codes-get-retired https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/13/289800435...

Quanttek 4y ago

Your question is literally answered in the article: > Even without finding the plane, a number of lessons have been drawn from the disappearance of MH370. Many of the responses to the disappearance centered on the fact that in the 21st century, commercial airliners should not just disappear. In the interest of knowing where every plane is at all times, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) began requiring that all airliners manufactured after the 1st of January 2021 include autonomous tracking devices that broadcast their location once per minute. To give greater coverage of airplanes manufactured before that date, Inmarsat (which supplies satellite relays to nearly all commercial airliners) changed the frequency of its handshakes from once per hour to once every 15 minutes. The European Aviation Safety Agency began requiring that the “pingers” on aircraft flight recorders last at least 90 days, rather than 30. ICAO also amended its guidelines to require that airliner designs approved after 2020 include cockpit voice recorders that record 25 hours of conversations (instead of the current standard of two), and that flight data recorders either stream data to a location on the ground or be designed to float to the surface after a crash. (Like all ICAO regulations, these only come into force if adopted by the member states, which may take some time.) I think now, after another documented murder-suicide, there's also been a change in regulations requiring at least 2 people to be in the cockpit at all times. Other commenters point to additional changes

EMM_386 4y ago
Note that none of those things would "prevent the next MH370", only be able to locate the wreckage faster. There isn't much that can be done to "prevent" incidents like this.
- wk_end 4y ago
  > I think now, after another documented murder-suicide, there's also been a change in regulations requiring at least 2 people to be in the cockpit at all times. This would help prevent a nefarious pilot from taking the plane down. Arguably, many of the things suggested might potentially have prevented Zaharie from carrying out his plan, assuming the scenario described in the article is true, depending on his motives: if the plane could have been intercepted in mid-flight, if he would have been found out almost instantly, his family wouldn't have been able to collect life insurance; if his motive had been less financial for his family and more about the intellectual challenge of getting away with the perfect crime, this too would have made his task more difficult. But that aside, when we say "prevent the next MH370", it's ambiguous: we could interpret that as "prevent a pilot from deliberately crashing their plane and killing everyone on board", or we could interpret it as "prevent a plane from vanishing", which has been devastating to families in its own unique and horrible way. In other words: locating the wreckage faster - or at all! - has value too, and shouldn't be dismissed.