“Seems to work”? Please, where can I find the data from the Malaysian airliner everyone is looking for?
Given the news reports that all communications from the Malaysian airliner stopped (including the transponder). Anything that shut off the transponder would probably shut off the transmissions from the black box so it seems like in this specific case a cloud based black box probably would not be of much use in finding this plane.
I agree it would not be of much use in finding the plane. But could it help us determine if there is some flaw in that particular model of airplane that needs to be addressed immediately before any more airplanes mysteriously disappear?
Since the disappearance of that Malaysian aircraft, here in Canada, there has been a few mentions on the news of a Canadian company that is working on some technology that would allow the real time streaming of flight data, I did not retain the name of the company.
a quick Google search found this discussionon the feasibility and cost associated with this and names the company from Calgary.
Here’s a discussion over on slashdot:
My comment was in reference to Ranger Jeff’s comment that “The current system seems to work.” The current system relies on locating and reading black boxes, and so far, we haven’t found any and they may not be readable when found. I wouldn’t call this a top-flight “working system.” If a detailed real-time reporting system existed, even if it ceased working in mid-flight, we’d have vastly more information than we do now.
A different question, but what how expensive would installing a satellite beacon on each aircraft be? Emergency beacons, available for sail or rent to hikers in remote areas and the like, cost around $200 plus the cost of a subscription fee. Such a beacon could nominally transmit continuously and be able to send data like position, heading and airspeed. I believe currently, this data is only transmitted when in range of a control tower.
Rob
Just about every plane, large or small (but not tiny ultralights), carry an ELT - Emergency locator Transmitter - activated by “G” force or a manual switch, it sends out a distinctive signal (now, I believe they also encode GPS and plane id) on specified frequencies.
Somewhere there is a little box from the missing plane.
I believe the “black boxes” also now xmit location.
That’s three beacons beeping somewhere within 3600 miles of last known location. (over 6 ours of scheduled flight + reserves * 550 mph).
Satellites are undoubtedly looking.
As discussed a thousand times: at any given time, there are literally thousands of commercial jets aloft. For each of them to be continuously transmitting everything they know would require an entire fleet of satellites be dedicated to just that. Add to that the expense of the down-link and storage, and you have just replicated, in scope and expense. the entire, worldwide ATC network. And added the satellites.
All for 1 flight in (literally) a million (or 3) which manages to find a hiding place.
“Not practical” does not come close to describing that scheme.
Actually, while ELT’s are not required on “tiny ultralights” most of the ultralight pilots I’ve known and flown with had one anyone. They aren’t that expensive, and it beats dying of exposure in the woods or a farm field.
Sounds like a good plan, in parallel with onboard flight data and voice recorders.
It’s surprising how much information is already transmitted over ACARS, which can use either VHS or satellite. AF447 was equipped to handle three kinds of ACARS traffic: high-priority ATC messages (Controller-Pilot Datalink Communications), airline operational control messages, and maintenance messages, and was transmitting the latter right up until the time it crashed. Indeed the BEA Interim Report was based almost entirely on the maintenance messages and examination of located debris, before either of the flight recorders had been found, and to my mind constituted the most dramatic account of the events. The final report with information from the recorders really just filled in a lot of details. For some reason I found the AF447 story among the most harrowing of all airline crashes, because of the way a minor problem started to cascade into sequentially more and more serious problems; the BEA report described the escalating cockpit visual and audio warnings that would have started turning on one after another, until one of the world’s most advanced modern aircraft with three experienced pilots on board just basically fell out of the sky and into the South Atlantic in the small hours of a cold dark night.
About as practical as storing a 90 minute hi-def video on a floppy disk. Yet here we are, storing 90 minute hi-def videos on cheap disks the size and cost of floppies everyday.
The problem is that one of these is exploiting untapped depths in our ability to manage nanoscale, the other is limited by the physics of radio communication. It is the balance that needs to be set. The bandwidth and signal to noise places a hard limit on what can be done that no amount of technological advance can overcome.
Thousands of flights aloft tweeting their location once a minute would be trivial. The RockBlok device I linked to earlier would do it trivially. You could cut a deal with Iridium, who would probably be ecstatic to provide the service.
For a trio of geosynchronous satellites, well they already exist - INMARSat - it is their job to provide safety services. The one mooted, well it already exists. The trick is how much bandwidth you can use. Continuous live tracking and flight data is not supported, but it could be if there was a clear cost/benefit case.
Moore’s Law, in the broadest sense, is not limited to chip design.
Although I am not currently involved with emergency communications or even RF as I once was, I occasionally attend meetings where the local emergency services are outlining their budget requests for the next year or several years. They are being forced to upgrade their communication equipment because (1) it gets obsolete quickly, and (2) the feds mandate significant changes.
These changes are invariably due to technology which can now place 64 calls in the same airspace as was once occupied by 1. The next technology increases the bandwidth yet again. I see no slowdown in this technology improvement; indeed, it seems to be speeding up. No longer is the new technology “just twice” as fast as the old, now it’s 10 or 100 times faster.
So far, “hard limits” don’t seem to be present. Data storage amounts and data transmission rates seem to be climbing endlessly, and predicting the future is getting harder.
Who is going to make them ( all the worlds airlines ) spend the kind of money to make this happen? Is the general public going to accept the cost? They are the ones who are going to have to pay for it…
I suspect you didn’t quite mean what you wrote there.
The “airpspace” and bandwidth are the same thing. You get a slab of frequencies between say 900MHz and 901MHz, and you have 1MHz of bandwidth. No amount of technology can change that. Where you do get improvements is in the ability to use new (and that means higher) frequencies. So your next technological leap might be a system that is allocated 1800MHz to 18002MHz. And you have 2MHz of bandwidth, with the same proportion of the spectrum used as before. The down side is that you need to work out how to communicate with the much higher frequency. So technological advances help.
You do get other advances that get you closer to the intrinsic capacity of a channel. Say you are allocated 1MHz of bandwidth. You can work out the useful signal to noise over the band, something which you can’t do anything about, and that gives you an absolute hard and solid limit on the information that the channel can carry. Where we have got good, is in approaching that limit. In the past you simply allocated little slivers of the band, and conversations took place in those slivers. The use of the channel capacity was pretty poor. Huge amounts of dead time, massive redundancy in what was carried. So, techniques like spread spectrum, plus aggressive compression of the data, get you use of the channel that is very close to the maximum possible. But we have pretty much got to that limit. There is a bit more space left, but the gains we saw before, have pretty much covered what is possible.
Satellite comms is much the same. Where progress has been huge is in opening up new frequency bands, with modern satellites operating in the Ka band (26.5 - 40 GHz) you get significant amounts of bandwidth possible. But we are limited in many ways. Ka band suffers from rain fade. But with geosynchronous satellites you must intrinsically share this bandwidth with everyone in the antenna footprint. But we are, as noted above, much better at making use of bandwidth, and can do a good job of squeezing the last drop out of the band. Whether it is possible to usefully get a next generation of communications working above 40GHz is another matter. Atmospheric absorption eventually limits the signal to noise badly, and we will reach the intrinsic limit of what is possible. Then the advances will have to come from LEO satellites, with their intrinsically smaller footprint.
I suspect I really did.
If you will allow a little leeway as to what “airspace” means. 
Yes, I’m aware that frequency allocation can make a difference, and I’m only minimally up to date with the technology underlying the newer equipment. But when our County’s Emergency Services comes to the budget table for funds, they are forever touting how much more channels, data and services can be handled with the new equipment they are being forced to buy by the feds.
No matter how you slice it – multiplexing in time, space or whatever – the technology is improving by leaps and bounds. What’s impractical today for time or space reasons is likely to be easy tomorrow, and that’s really the only point I was trying to make,
For those who are contemplating how expensive a real-time satellite link for detailed data might be, please consider and contrast the cost of finding Air France’s black boxes, not only in manpower, shippower, underwater divepower, but also in loss of time which prevented warning other flights of possible fatal errors before too late:
My guess is the cost was in the billions. How much hard drive storage can you buy for billions? How many lost lives can you prevent for billions?
You’ve said it all.
It isn’t the cost of the storage, that is in the noise. The cost is in the satellite communications. Satellites cost billions. However, and this is key - the satellites exist. But you need to pay for the use of the satellites, and the owners will want to find a way to both pay for the satellites and make a bit of profit. If the satellite uplinks used up the entire bandwidth the satellite was capable of, the scheme would be unaffordable. But they won’t. You could probably get away with a single transponder, on each of the three satellites. That would still have a capital value of hundreds of millions. You also need to fit all the aircraft with transmitters capable of uplinking the data. This isn’t trivial either. The data rate you uplink on depends upon the signal to noise the satellite sees from you. A bigger dish and higher power gets you better signal, but the dish also needs to steer, as the satellite will appear anywhere in the sky relative to the aircraft. Again, these are solved problems, and some aircraft - those that already provide in-air Internet access do this. But retrofitting to existing older aircraft may be anything from impossible to prohibitively expensive. Adding to the build of all new aircraft may be viable, especially if it ties in with existing plans for in-air entertainment (aka - new ways of getting more money from passengers.)
Lower bandwidth comms, as has been noted, already exists. Engineering data is regularly uplinked. But these are periodic summaries of the flight systems, and are used for trending. It allows pro-active maintenance, preventing a niggling issue becoming a serious one. They don’t upload real time data, and don’t upload cockpit voice.
Overall, it is probably going to happen, but as a result of being able to piggy back on other services. But the cost benefit is not good if you wanted to build the system from scratch. Air France was a very unusual case, and usually the recorders are found quickly. Remember most accidents don’t occur in cruise, but at take-off or landing.