7 ms·
It's technologically trivial, today, to perform an automated secondary backup (local or otherwise - but ideally remote) of days - months, years - of this teleme
by DrNosferatu 3y ago
It's technologically trivial, today, to perform an automated secondary backup (local or otherwise - but ideally remote) of days - months, years - of this telemetry and voice recorder data.
(as well as to keep it private & encrypted, and only accessible with a warrant from a judge)
If the FAA does not mandate, at least, this from now on, it will just add to the pile of evidence that they are in Boeing's pocket.
PS: Secondary backup. No existing system has to change. Just an outer layer of backup tapping into the existing data recording loop.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoPPS: Give me USD 15M + 10K per aircraft + 10 cents per transported/flown passenger ever protected by this System, and I'll design and implement it for you - with quadruplex redundancy. (disclaimer: Founder tier pricing. General pricing may vary - up)
- hef19898 3y agoThis comment is peak HN arrogance, or pretty close to it...
- DrNosferatu 3y agoOh, but you haven't seen nothing yet - what about, on top of that, even some extra credibility: Former NASA Engineer, baby B-)
- hef19898 3y agoImpressive. Just tell me, when did NASA develop and build civilian aerospace components?
- DrNosferatu 3y agoNot the point - these are just peak HN arrogance credentials ;)
- hef19898 3y agoAbsolutely the point, because none of what you propose is easy, let alone trivial... As you would know if you came close to civil aerospace development, certification or change management. You also ignore that it is more a policy than a technical problem, Europe has 25 hours and not 2 like the US. No idea how easy it is to retrofit the 25 hours into US certified aircraft with 2 hour recording, which might pose another problem. Bit hey, use your NASA credentials, apply to YC or any other VC, and launch your "trivial" tech solution.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoThanks for the venture offer, but I'm busy frying bigger fish right now.
- barbazoo 3y agoI read it more like an annoyed take on the aviation industry's change management process.
- mulmen 3y agoBased on my experiences with modern technology I don’t want aviation learning anything from tech.
- uticus 3y agoActually I found it makes a great point. > peak HN arrogance Take peak HN arrogance, balance it against peak bureaucratic promises plus peak actual cost, and let me know what you come out with.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoIs it arrogant to wish to survive a common civilian airplane flight?
- hef19898 3y agoNo, but pretty ignorant to propose something that makes it easier to investigate crashes and incidents while having zero impact on incident prevention.
- mulmen 3y agoAssuming zero impact is the arrogance. These systems are complex and human. You can’t make changes without side effects. Nothing is free and actions can have unintended consequences.
- Aeolun 3y agoAll the same, not changing anything changes nothing. And any change involving tech/gear are preferable to changes involving procedure (either more of it, or changes to it). Extending the recording length on voice recorders to a higher number seems pretty straightforward (and already done elsewhere).
- mulmen 3y agoExtending to 25 hours is a lot different than extending it forever. Using “cheap” and “easy” recording devices is frankly reckless. Look around this comment section at the ignoramuses willing to throw SD cards at commercial airliners. Everyone’s an expert. Yes, voice recorders should last long enough to capture everything that happens on a flight. But at the same time pilots should have protections to make them feel safe from retaliation. Aviation safety is an incredible achievement that we as technologists should learn from. It’s not fertile ground for self-proclaimed “engineers” to piss their pet theories upon.
- jacamera 3y agoI had assumed it was satire so you’re absolutely right if it was not!
- DrNosferatu 3y agoHow dare they!?
- Grazester 3y agoWell I think that one flew right over your head. Something Boeing couldn't achieve, so clearly the poster must have worked for Nasa.
- ofcrpls 3y agoErr - it is an EASA requirement that Boeing already conforms to, I believe.
- selimthegrim 3y agoI think he was punning about the flying over the head being something Boeing couldn’t achieve
- 93po 3y agoStartup culture is basically entirely about disruption and challenging status quo. It's not really any more arrogant than general startup mentality, which admittedly is very often arrogant (facebook for dogs, seeking $1B in investors!)
- fred_is_fred 3y agoSomeone just invented DropBlackBox.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoI'll make sure you get some royalties for that name suggestion ;)
- uticus 3y agoBBaaS
- jaredwiener 3y agoJust get an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. /s
- froh 3y agorcs. you meant rcs. and uucp.
- oneplane 3y agoBut it needs to be more enterprise-y, X.400 with maybe X.25 should do nicely.
- justinkramp 3y ago...rsync
- belter 3y agoJust dont use Azure....
- abduhl 3y ago>> only accessible with a warrant from a judge What's your technical solution to this aspect? The solution must be "technologically trivial" which I take to mean implementable today or in the near future with no change to how current regulations or laws work or to how current workstreams outside of the secondary backup system work (i.e., no change is required like having the judiciary start using crypto). We are also using the strict definition of "only." It should be technologically impossible for any person or entity to access the data without a warrant.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoI mean my System will have a layer of encryption protection. And if the FAA, Unions, etc., so wish, it can be made to completely preserve privacy and only unlocked when the applicable judiciary (or whoever) sees fit.
- abduhl 3y agoSo you don't have a technical solution. Got it.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoBut I absolutely do: Elective during (and after) the System's procurement, you can also option it with a "Board-of-Trustees-as-a-Service" to decide when to open the Seal of Privacy and disclose the System's Recordings - if ever. (prices for this option are in Swiss Francs)
- Ginden 3y agoAsymmetric cryptography isn't a rocket science. Airline keeps encrypted recording and public key, certain government institution keeps private key, you need both to decrypt.
- abduhl 3y agoThis violates rule 1 by requiring a government institution to keep a private key: no change to how current regulations or laws work or to how current workstreams outside of the secondary backup system work (i.e., no change is required like having the judiciary start using crypto) This violates rule 2 by not assuring that a warrant is necessary because somebody at the government institution has the private key (assuming that institution is not the judge): It should be technologically impossible for any person or entity to access the data without a warrant
- Thrymr 3y agoOr they could just implement the 25-hour recorder like they have in Europe. This was a policy choice, not a technical limitation.
- mulmen 3y agoIt’s not that simple. Europe has a different regulatory environment. Do pilots in the US have the same protection from retaliation for example? Has the 25 hour recording period improved safety? Have there been undesirable side effects?
- spuz 3y ago> If the FAA does not mandate, at least, this from now on, it will just add to the pile of evidence that they are in Boeing's pocket. I don't see how it's in the interests of Boeing to keep the mandate at 2 hours. If it gets extended, it's likely that in future incidents they will have more evidence of pilot error than they do now since that is the primary cause of accidents (even for Boeing), plus I am sure they can print some nice invoices for the costs of the upgrades to existing fleets.
- hughesjj 3y agoWell, could be, but another possibility: - most pilot errors resulting in an incident occur close to the incident and thus the # of times it's their fault will drop off with longer recording time - the longer recording time may allow for some complaints about the Boeing aircraft or some clunking noises to be identified which could indicate an issue with the aircraft
- DrNosferatu 3y agoThe key concept here is: “clunking noises”. (aka “aircraft defects”) PS: I mean it.
- mulmen 3y agoNot all clunking noises are defects and not all defects make clunking noises.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoFree hint: “metaphor”.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wnevets 3y agowhy do you think the lack voice recordings protect Boeing instead of the people being recorded?
- DrNosferatu 3y agoThere are human lives on the line - thorough records are clearly warranted. (not same as open-access: judge must authorize playback)
- DrNosferatu 3y agoFAA has the final word - over manufacturers, unions, etc.
- wnevets 3y ago> There are human lives on the line - thorogh records are clearly warranted. I'm not suggesting otherwise. > it will just add to the pile of evidence that they are in Boeing's pocket. I don't understand the connection between the lack of voice recordings and how that is proof of the FAA protecting Boeing rather than the lack of voice recordings as proof of the FAA protecting the pilots.
- mulmen 3y agoAviation has a healthy blameless culture which has created willingness on the part of air crews to self-report deviations. If you make a mistake and own up to it you suffer no consequences. Keeping recordings forever may disincentivize crews from communicating freely if their comments could come back to haunt them years later. This may still be a good idea but it’s not as simple as changing the retention period on recordings.
- DrNosferatu 3y agoOnly warrant-issued-by-judge-mandated disclosure. Full privacy preservation.
- mulmen 3y agoAviation is safe because the participants all trust each other. Blanket recording for undefined future use undermines that trust. This has a chilling effect on communication. Crews will be reluctant to communicate with each other. The risk of a warrant being issued at all creates an adversarial relationship between crews and investigators. This is a horrible idea and suggesting it betrays a cliche misunderstanding of the domain that is the stereotype of modern technologists.
- donmcronald 3y agoYes, the blameless culture is a critical safety feature and it could be ruined very easily if the failed leadership in the industry starts looking for scapegoats. It's sad too because analyzing every cockpit conversation with AI to highlight things that may cause common confusion could be invaluable. Instead, the short-sighted leadership in today's business world will use it for (job) performance analysis and to penalize workers for failing to act like robots :-(
- mulmen 3y agoPossibly. But as a technologist I don’t trust AI to actually deliver such a result in our generation. The system will inevitably be created by modern technologists without intimate domain knowledge. It will be motivated by short-term deadline chasing and MVP culture. The cockpit of an airliner is no place for bleeding edge technological innovation. I don’t need an Airbus with Siri. Pilots already spend hours in training every year. Is reviewing the output of this AI system really a better use of their time? What problem is it even solving?
- paxys 3y ago> If the FAA does not mandate, at least, this from now on, it will just add to the pile of evidence that they are in Boeing's pocket. It's the pilots' union that is opposing this. I doubt Boeing cares either way. If anything they'd want the extra data.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bronco21016 3y agoI think you would find pushback from far more than just Boeing. Airbus, APA, ALPA, etc. Nobody in the industry would find it reasonable to broadcast something that isn’t meant to come out. I think the reasons for the missing data need to be established before we go calling for sweeping change. EDIT: It appears the recorder had continued operation and thus overwrote the data. This is a failure in procedure. Procedures are in place for securing evidence in incidents such as this and for some reason the ball was dropped.
- snypher 3y agoIt seems that the main disadvantage of the current system is a 2-hour loop of storage, which can be overwritten in long flights and hence missing. The change needs to be either longer storage which would be a approvals nightmare, or something like OP proposed which isn't too ridiculous. I have certain compliance paperwork that needs to be retained for 5+ years, why not cockpit audio also?
- bronco21016 3y agoPlenty of other commenters have established why it’s ridiculous. Cost, bandwidth, privacy, questionable value. The ICAO 25 hour standard seems reasonable to me as someone in the industry.