5 ms·

I don't like the tone of this article. Articles like this were written after each and every single crash, which eventually led to sharper requirements, more cer

I don't like the tone of this article. Articles like this were written after each and every single crash, which eventually led to sharper requirements, more certification, added security gizmos and thingies and more safe-ropes in every single corner of the aircraft. Most of that was reasonable, but care must be taken when making systems more complicated and static by taking what seems to be the easy route of "just adding a fix". The reason why most of these systems seem anachronistic is not due to the high costs and financial pressure on the airline companies. Most systems seem so anachronistic because they have to be incredibly reliable and robust. Flight recorders are built to withstand about any disaster you can throw at them, which would be quite hard to do achieve with a modern cloud-enabled micro-electronic device. Even if we threw billions at the problem, it would most likely take five years to build a mass-deployable remote aviation telemetry system of the required quality level, just because making hardware is hard, and a half-assed solution helps nobody. It's particularly unlikely that a niche solution like the one suggested in the article works for everybody. Don't get me wrong -- added safety is always nice. But let's take a step back for the moment. Let us not just put another whole new box into every aircraft after every crash. Instead, let's try and make the smallest possible adjustment to what is a well-proven, existing system already. There have been reports after the MH370 loss that turbine telemetry data had been transmitted even after all other systems had failed. An small adjustment would be to lower the interval in which this signal was transmitted, down to say 30 seconds, provided the comm satellites are prepared to handle this. I'm not an expert on avionics, and I'm not claiming that this is the egg of Columbus, but surely there has to be a nice, small, lightweight and elegant solution, which incidentally is cheap on top of this.

boxey 12y ago
Agreed. People forget that in addition to the nominal cost of a new tracking system ($120k PER PLANE in the article, not including control center cost), just the weight alone costs about $3k/year for each 1kg added to the plane. Add the yearly communication service, maintainance, depreciation costs to this, and we're soon gonna be paying $3k/plane ticket. In contrast, since MH370, Inmarsat has changed the time period for handshakes with their terminals from one hour to 15 minutes. Cost: $0.
- magicalist 12y ago
  > $3k/year for each 1kg added to the plane sorry, offtopic, but this is an interesting number. Do you have a source for more on this? Most of the search hits I can find are discussing economics of spaceflight.
  - greeneggs 12y ago
    Usually you find these kinds of figures in articles about 3D printing aircraft parts. For example, "By reducing an airplane’s weight by just one kilogram, an airline can save $1,300 in fuel costs per year, according to the [2011] IBISWorld report." [1] The 2014 report can be purchased here [2]. Of course, these numbers will depend on the kind of plane and its utilization, as well as fuel costs. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/technology/3d-printing-coming-to-the-manufacturing-spaceand-outer-space-01092012.html http://www.businessweek.com/technology/3d-printing-coming-to... [2] https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/3d-printer-manufacturing.html https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/3d-printer-manufacturing....
- warfangle 12y ago
  On the other hand, airlines make tens of billions in extra revenue from those little fees to make it just a little bit less like a cattle trough.
- z-e-r-o 12y ago
  I don't understand why such a difference between what you are saying and a portable SPOT device [1] which is pretty much standard for extreme sports nowadays. A SPOT device is only 114g, tracks every 2.5 minutes, and runs on batteries for days. $170 for the device and $200 for the service per year. Actually if passengers start carrying these devices (while sitting next to the window) that's already a solution. [1] http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=100 http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=100
ern 12y ago
There is no doubt that it would be costly to add real-time tracking and telemetry. However planes going missing is also very expensive. I have to wonder if airlines would be more accepting of the costs of monitoring equipment if they paid for search and rescue themselves instead of relying on governments to cover the costs. A classic case of privatizing profits and nationalizing costs.
- boxey 12y ago
  Wrong, commercial passenger planes going missing are much less expensive. Commercial plane disappearance is close to a 'black swan' event (1/10years) [1]. Tyler Durden this: * search and rescue for this rare event: $50M/10year = $5M/year * cost of tracking system: $20k/year amortized cost per system * 5k aircrafts = $100M/year The airline industry as a whole has made a cumulative loss during its 100-year history. Airlines are already nationalized one way or another, like it or not. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances [2] http://www.johnkay.com/2005/09/27/airlines-and-the-canine-features-of-unprofitable-industries http://www.johnkay.com/2005/09/27/airlines-and-the-canine-fe...
ern 12y ago
There is no doubt that it would be costly to add real-time tracking and telemetry. However planes going missing is also very expensive. I have to wonder if airlines would be more accepting of the costs if they paid for search and rescue themselves instead of relying on governments to cover the costs. A classic case of privatizing profits and nationalizing costs.

boxey 12y ago

Agreed. People forget that in addition to the nominal cost of a new tracking system ($120k PER PLANE in the article, not including control center cost), just the weight alone costs about $3k/year for each 1kg added to the plane. Add the yearly communication service, maintainance, depreciation costs to this, and we're soon gonna be paying $3k/plane ticket. In contrast, since MH370, Inmarsat has changed the time period for handshakes with their terminals from one hour to 15 minutes. Cost: $0.

magicalist 12y ago
> $3k/year for each 1kg added to the plane sorry, offtopic, but this is an interesting number. Do you have a source for more on this? Most of the search hits I can find are discussing economics of spaceflight.
- greeneggs 12y ago
  Usually you find these kinds of figures in articles about 3D printing aircraft parts. For example, "By reducing an airplane’s weight by just one kilogram, an airline can save $1,300 in fuel costs per year, according to the [2011] IBISWorld report." [1] The 2014 report can be purchased here [2]. Of course, these numbers will depend on the kind of plane and its utilization, as well as fuel costs. [1] http://www.businessweek.com/technology/3d-printing-coming-to-the-manufacturing-spaceand-outer-space-01092012.html http://www.businessweek.com/technology/3d-printing-coming-to... [2] https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/3d-printer-manufacturing.html https://www.ibisworld.com/industry/3d-printer-manufacturing....
warfangle 12y ago
On the other hand, airlines make tens of billions in extra revenue from those little fees to make it just a little bit less like a cattle trough.
z-e-r-o 12y ago
I don't understand why such a difference between what you are saying and a portable SPOT device [1] which is pretty much standard for extreme sports nowadays. A SPOT device is only 114g, tracks every 2.5 minutes, and runs on batteries for days. $170 for the device and $200 for the service per year. Actually if passengers start carrying these devices (while sitting next to the window) that's already a solution. [1] http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=100 http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=100

ern 12y ago

There is no doubt that it would be costly to add real-time tracking and telemetry. However planes going missing is also very expensive. I have to wonder if airlines would be more accepting of the costs of monitoring equipment if they paid for search and rescue themselves instead of relying on governments to cover the costs. A classic case of privatizing profits and nationalizing costs.

boxey 12y ago
Wrong, commercial passenger planes going missing are much less expensive. Commercial plane disappearance is close to a 'black swan' event (1/10years) [1]. Tyler Durden this: * search and rescue for this rare event: $50M/10year = $5M/year * cost of tracking system: $20k/year amortized cost per system * 5k aircrafts = $100M/year The airline industry as a whole has made a cumulative loss during its 100-year history. Airlines are already nationalized one way or another, like it or not. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances [2] http://www.johnkay.com/2005/09/27/airlines-and-the-canine-features-of-unprofitable-industries http://www.johnkay.com/2005/09/27/airlines-and-the-canine-fe...

ern 12y ago

There is no doubt that it would be costly to add real-time tracking and telemetry. However planes going missing is also very expensive. I have to wonder if airlines would be more accepting of the costs if they paid for search and rescue themselves instead of relying on governments to cover the costs. A classic case of privatizing profits and nationalizing costs.