Why plane black box doesn't upload it's data to satellite?

[Pawelk198604]

3 Years ago there was an air crash that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski and his wife, and 94 people accompanying him.

Right-wing politicians insist that it was an attack and not the disaster that some people tinkered with black boxes.

I wonder if it could be done so that the black boxes transmit data to a satellite in real time, so that there was no room for misunderstanding.

Such black boxes are also helpful if the plane had crashed into the sea, I wonder why scientists do not work on it.

[Kerbart]

Such black boxes are also helpful if the plane had crashed into the sea, I wonder why scientists do not work on it.

Because the problem isn't science. It's economy. Who's going to pay for those satellites and all that is involved with it? And the technology might not be that easy to master either (read Tintin and the Iridium network). The fact that we have satellite phones (with a bandwidth of around 9600bits not bytes per second--if you've ever had the pleasure of using a 9600 baud modem you'll know what that means) doesn't mean a lot; covering daily airline traffic requires a lot more. At the same time the number of times where the black boxes could not be retrieved--or where it turned out to be extremely costly--can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Management version: it's just not worth it.

[drakesdoom]

It would be incredibly hard and expensive to make such a system that would be more reliable then the current system. At that it is a very low priority because planes are already the safest way to travel. The money and time would be better spent working on car saftey, or fighting obesity.

[K^2]

The only real mystery is why anyone still flies these deathtraps.

[Kerbart]

The only real mystery is why anyone still flies these deathtraps.

From the same article: “Since 1968 there have been 39 fatal incidents involving the Tu-154, most of which were caused either by factors unrelated to the aircraft, or by its extensive use in demanding conditionsâ€Â

40 incidents on 1026 hulls and a lot more miles (in much rougher conditions), then say, what was for a long time the flagship of British Airways and Air France, with an incident rate almost double of that (1 in 14).

[PakledHostage]

I wonder if it could be done so that the black boxes transmit data to a satellite in real time, so that there was no room for misunderstanding.

Some data such as status messages are transmitted in flight via the ACARS system on more modern aircraft. While far from being as detailed as FDR data, this information has been used in accident investigations. For example, ACARS data from Air France 447 was pretty much all investigators had to go on in the initial investigation into that accident. The black boxes weren't found until two years after the accident.

[lajoswinkler]

I've also always wondered why is that. I don't think economy is a huge problem. We aren't talking about lots of data. OK, pilot conversation would be a problem at the moment, given the fact there is a huge number of aircrafts in the air at any given moment of time and not enough bandwidth to cover it, but telemetry? That should not be a problem, and even if it is, it could be solved with peanuts. It could be enforced by every country or it could be in the form of a membership (if you don't pay, you don't use the system).

[Kryten]

Even these days, a good satellite connection is hardly guaranteed regardless of conditions-particularly the sort of conditions where black-box data ends up being necessary.

[Nibb31]

Actually, the data rate of hundreds of planes all uploading their flight data is quite huge. It would need some beefy satellites and huge antennas on the plane. It would be expensive and statistically useless, because the cases where the black boxes are never retrieved are quite rare.

[lajoswinkler]

Actually, the data rate of hundreds of planes all uploading their flight data is quite huge. It would need some beefy satellites and huge antennas on the plane. It would be expensive and statistically useless, because the cases where the black boxes are never retrieved are quite rare.

How on earth is telemetry huge data?

[Nibb31]

It's huge when you have thousands of planes all transmitting at the same time.

[rpayne88]

The USAF operates a fleet of satellites in LEO (almost typed LKO) for the express purpose of receiving 409 MHz ELTs and EPIRBs (distress beacons.) 409 MHz beacons can be equipped with a GPS chip and will relay GPS coordinates to the satellite, then the USAF RCC (rescue coordination center) and finally to search and rescue on the ground. These beacons go off more often than you think (I'm a member of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol and have first hand experience with these things.) They will go off if a plane touches down hard. Meanwhile, the pilot walks away with no damage to the aircraft. (Then, if its in my area, a radius of about 150 miles, I have help find it and shut it off.) (And they always seem to go off at 3AM:D I don't know for sure, but maybe we could utilize the capabilities in these satellites to receive transmissions for flight recorders (A.K.A. black boxes.) If not all the data on board, maybe partial data?

[lajoswinkler]

It's huge when you have thousands of planes all transmitting at the same time.

I seriously doubt that. I think it's nothing compared to voice.

I think the true problems should be the Doppler effect and reflections on ionosphere that leads to multiple copies shifted in phase, interfering with each other, etc.

The worst bandwidth problems would be over large bodies of water, where only satellites can be used, but lots of accidents (if not most) happen right after the takeoff and upon landing. Therefore, land. Airports. Lots of room for transmission equipment.

To be sure, we'd have to ask someone working in the control tower, or perhaps a jet plane pilot. This is a too complex question that requires up to date knowledge.

[nhnifong]

Why can't the black box data just piggyback on the plane's existing satellite link used for the customer wifi connection in low-priority packets?

[PakledHostage]

To be sure, we'd have to ask someone working in the control tower, or perhaps a jet plane pilot. This is a too complex question that requires up to date knowledge.

And what makes you think that they would know more than Nibb? Why would a "jet plane pilot" or air traffic controller necessarily know anything about data rates? Certainly the technology exists to transmit more telemetry data than what is done currently, but as has been asked previously: What's the point? There are certification costs, operating costs, costs for procuring, installing and maintaining the hardware, etc. Why spend all of that money to solve a problem that really doesn't exist? The airline industry has plenty of bigger fish to fry with its limited resources.

[nhnifong]

And what makes you think that they would know more than Nibb? Why would a "jet plane pilot" or air traffic controller necessarily know anything about data rates? Certainly the technology exists to transmit more telemetry data than what is done currently, but as has been asked previously: What's the point? There are certification costs, operating costs, costs for procuring, installing and maintaining the hardware, etc. Why spend all of that money to solve a problem that really doesn't exist? The airline industry has plenty of bigger fish to fry with its limited resources.

Perhaps the right wing pundits mentioned by OP are actually trying to elicit counter-productive action from the airline industry

[Nuke]

planes are already starting to have wifi, which im sure passengers already use to move about a considerable amount of data. dont see an issue with having the black box hooked up to the plane's existing ip network to transmit flight data back to a server somewhere on the ground.

[lajoswinkler]

And what makes you think that they would know more than Nibb? Why would a "jet plane pilot" or air traffic controller necessarily know anything about data rates? Certainly the technology exists to transmit more telemetry data than what is done currently, but as has been asked previously: What's the point? There are certification costs, operating costs, costs for procuring, installing and maintaining the hardware, etc. Why spend all of that money to solve a problem that really doesn't exist? The airline industry has plenty of bigger fish to fry with its limited resources.

Why wouldn't they? If they don't, who does? Those people need to have the latest news in that field.

What do you mean it does not exist? Statistically, air traffic is very safe, but when it crashes in the ocean, people want to know what happened, so they can improve future planes. Insurance companies want to know what happened, too. Also, it helps the families of deceased and you can't put a price on that.

I don't see how this is a large economical effort. The world is already heavily covered by various networks. Indeed, why not piggypack on that? If someone can transmit their airplane bathroom duckface photos, the plane can transmit telemetry.

[K^2]

Why wouldn't they? If they don't, who does? Those people need to have the latest news in that field.

You seem to have a strange perception of what ATCs and pilots do that is incongruent with reality. Pilot's job is keeping a plane in the air. Their knowledge of avionics and aerodynamics is limited to what it do, not how it does it. They have mechanics and engineers to worry about the later. Same deal with ATCs. They can know a lot about regulations and equipment, but specifics of operation isn't part of it. My university has a good aeronautics program, teaching pilots, ATCs, and engineers. I've taken some classes from them back when I could do it for free as an undergrad. Trust me, a typical pilot and ATC know absolutely nothing about underlying tech.

[Lexif]

Does anyone think this would get the conspiracy theorists to shut up in the case mentioned in the OP? Technology can't be a solution for a political probelm. I really don't see a need for this. It's pretty much a non-existent problem. How many crashes would be better understood by this, and what are you willing to pay for it? I can't think of more than two or three cases were the recorders were destroyed or lost at sea since the 80s. And you will want to locate and inspect the wreckage anyway.

It might be nice to piggy back on existing technology to get some low quality data stream out for free, and that's already done in some way with automatic text messages via ACARS transmitting system failures to the maintenance base, as the recent Air France crash showed. But bandwidth on those sat links is expensive, so don't expect the full data set to be transmitted in real time.

Also, consider that you want it to still work in case of an emergency. Got a problem in the electric system? Now you have to power your sat uplink via battery. Those are heavy. Also, don't forget those sat antennas are directional (I think). If I remember it right, in the Air France crash, the plane's final trajectory (high bank) blocked sat uplink for some periods, so system failure ACARS messages got out late and bunched up. Why pump lots of money into a system that might not work when you need it most? If you want to throw more money at the problem, why not use it to record more parameters in a better resolutuion on the existing recorders. They are already much more capable than the outdated minimum requirements.

There's also talk of including video feed, but that's really controversial with pilots. I mean, if I mess up on the job, I don't want the chance that a video clip of me dying crying for my mother leaks out, it's understandable.

Edit: After the search for AF447, I would also rather put the money into better locator beacons. As I said above, you need to find the wreckage anyway.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Lexif

[jwenting]

Remember that only a very small percentage of aircraft out there has a high speed internet hookup, an even smaller percentage is operated by an airline actually willing to have its aircraft hackable over that hookup 24/7 by having an open data link any script kiddie can break in on (or some national agency from a country that's not friendly to their own...).

And don't get me wrong, the moment we start hooking aircraft systems up to internet connections so they can be remotely monitored is the moment we hook them up to internet links that can be used to control them remotely.

And then there's reliability. The completeness of the data can never be assured, on tape it is assured. Networks are unreliable. When flying in conditions most likely to cause accidents especially that internet link is likely to be down or poor. Conditions like thunderstorms, near volcanic eruptions, in other severe weather.

And on polar flights, you're out of contact with comsats for prolonged periods, so no data transmitted either.

Thus, even if you could transmit everything in real time, and do so at a price that is as cheap as or cheaper than storing it on tape in the FDR and CVR (which you won't be able to) you're looking at a reliability issue AND a security issue that you're not going to solve.

The internet isn't the solution to most problems. In fact more often than not it's the cause of the problems, or at the very least the cause of a ton of conspiracy theories started because of the problems.

[Requiem762]

3 Years ago there was an air crash that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski and his wife, and 94 people accompanying him.

Right-wing politicians insist that it was an attack and not the disaster that some people tinkered with black boxes.

I wonder if it could be done so that the black boxes transmit data to a satellite in real time, so that there was no room for

misunderstanding.

Such black boxes are also helpful if the plane had crashed into the sea, I wonder why scientists do not work on it.

We'll if you transmit the data to a satellite it still has to go somewhere else like a dedicated data center where said data from the planes black box could just as easily be tampered with.

And the costs of maintaining a system constantly monitoring every flight very day would be astronomical.

[Idobox]

Why use a satellite link?

On board a plane, you have space and power, you could use normal radio links too. You might have to put a few automated relay buoys in the middle of the ocean, but if you only to transfer telemetry data, you don't need large bandwidth, and could deal with slow transmission, meaning you could use longwave radio, wchich works beyond the horizon.

[jwenting]

you would need high speed as you'd need to do real time transmission of both telemetry and voice (the VCR is often as important for figuring out what went wrong as is the FDR).

That's a lot of data, and you need to send it continuously, not do a burst transmission once every 10 minutes or so or you'd lose the most important bits in case of an accident.

Of course you'd also be introducing several new points of failure in the system that records flight data for accident investigators. The transmitter can fail, its powersource can fail, the relays can fail, etc. etc. etc.

The whole concept of the CVR and FDR is to make everything self contained and as reliable as possible. Things go in (data and electricity, and the latter only to keep the batteries charged, there is ample backup capacity) but nothing goes out, nothing relies on external systems to store and retain the data of those crucial last minutes of a flight.

Introducing an external thing that is relied on for the system to work means killing that reliability.

[frizzank]

The sad truth is human life does have a dollar value to it. While doing this is possible, the cost to benefit is extremely low.

Planes could be equipped with ejection seats for every passenger on the plane but the cost per seat on a plane like that would be in the tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds of thousands, depending on the flight. Safety features are a balance of cost, safety and public opinion.