Push for real-time "black box" data streaming

probe

"Prompted by difficulties retrieving flight-data recorders after recent fatal airliner crashes, European aviation regulators want to start using satellites to transmit critical safety information about accidents.

"The idea of beaming real-time safety data from jetliners to the ground gained new impetus last June, when an Air France jetliner crashed into the Atlantic Ocean en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, killing all 228 people on board. The Airbus A330's digital data and cockpit voice recorders, called "black boxes," still haven't been located as investigators kick off their third search effort.

"At a global aviation summit starting Monday in Montreal, the European Union and other European aviation organizations for the first time will call for streaming in-flight data about aircraft maneuvers and pilot commands via satellites. Representatives of EU transport commissioner Siim Kallas will press officials from other countries to support expanded use of satellite links to supplement data captured by traditional black boxes, according to one of his top deputies."


more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304434404575149512636704730.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

BrianD

The need for this baffles me. Why would we want every aircraft in the world transmitting redundent data around the globe? Where's the pay off?

Aircraft are made safer by design and testing. There's billions spent on this. On the otherhand, nearly every aircraft disaster has been the result of a very specific chain of events - one offs that will be difficult if not impossible to repeat. In many cases, where there is a design flaw there can often be a "near miss scenario" before any major disaster. Analysis of existinf flight recorders post-flight would be more useful than real time data.

To create this data network and manage it will be expensive and it will be the punter that will be paying for it. Thus cost of air travel will increase and this will affect patronage. Why bother? Every airline can analyse their own aircraft post-flight by accessing the flight data recorder.

They only think about the Air France disaster is that we do not know precisely what happened but there is sufficient data to speculate with some accuracy what happened and take the necessary action.

wylo

BrianD wrote: »

The need for this baffles me. Why would we want every aircraft in the world transmitting redundent data around the globe? Where's the pay off?

Aircraft are made safer by design and testing. There's billions spent on this. On the otherhand, nearly every aircraft disaster has been the result of a very specific chain of events - one offs that will be difficult if not impossible to repeat. In many cases, where there is a design flaw there can often be a "near miss scenario" before any major disaster. Analysis of existinf flight recorders post-flight would be more useful than real time data.

To create this data network and manage it will be expensive and it will be the punter that will be paying for it. Thus cost of air travel will increase and this will affect patronage. Why bother? Every airline can analyse their own aircraft post-flight by accessing the flight data recorder.

They only think about the Air France disaster is that we do not know precisely what happened but there is sufficient data to speculate with some accuracy what happened and take the necessary action.

Is that why they are doing a third search? For every crash , an answer MUST be found because if it is not then you have a situation where there is aircraft in the air with the same potential problem that could cause the same type of crash again.

This data would only need to be held onto for lets say 2 weeks after the flight, then it could be overwritten.
Yes, it would be expensive performing the modification on every aircraft, but its not like there isnt a system in place to pick up all the data on the aircraft. What would be needed is to have the info going to the flight data recorder also be sent to a transmitter.
It would be expensive setting up the network to send and receive this data, but this would help write off one more concern and that is 'What if you cant find the black box after a crash?".

Im wondering would it be possible to upload this information to an internet database, like a constant stream where every aircraft is connected using its own means of connection(on a par to a simple vodafone internet usb stick)?
This would make the whole process very cheap surely? All you would need is the change made on the aircraft and an online database.

hurleronditch

would think its not quite as simple as internet, as mobile internet runs on phone networks which need masts, of which there are none in the middle of the atlantic/pacific. I dont think it would be that difficult though, a simple example would be a more advanced version of a cars sat nav, which transmits aswell as receives. The only issue is that any gap in satellite transmission means a gap in black box info, and if for instance a plane was brought down by severe weather which can interrupt transmission to satellites, the valuable data may be lost, which puts you back to square one and sending subs looking for black boxes. intruiging to see what will come out of it though

Foggy43

There is something already in place that works along these lines. Boeing approved but unfortunately installed by a very few airlines. The QAR or Quick Access Recorder can record the performance of any system on the aircraft and load it on to a removable disk. The disk is removed, read and stored on a hard drive on the ground for history purposes, then erased and reinstalled to the QAR. The reason airlines turned this down is cost.

A certain B777 incident still under investigation had all the fuel and fuel system info on the QAR. It tells the investigators what the system did but not why. The Air France crash? I haven't read any intern reports so I do not know if these messages sent by the aircraft were 'leaks to the media' or confirmed by the investigators. If confirmed, again it is a case of what systems were doing but why? I think you need both black boxes and physically inspect suspect components and or systems to tell what actually happened.

BrianD

Since the introduction of "data enabled" handsets e.g. the iPhone, mobile networks are struggling to convey the amount of data. Apparently networks in London and California have fallen over or come close to it due to the amount of data being transmitted.

The problem is that 99% of flights are routine and therefore the data collected is largely redundent - or at least would not justify real time data collection.

Every crash has to be investigated but the fact that the data recorders are not available does not prevent an investigation taking place and safety improvements or recommendations taking place.

The Air France crash, for example, where the data recorders have not been recovered and no definite cause of crash found. There has been no negative impact on passenger safety nor have passengers stopped flying as a result. There has been sufficent information gained from this incident to make safety recommendations without the recorders.

There are very few people killed in airline disasters every year involving modern well maintained aircraft. Why put the burden of the cost of this system on the flying public when it is completely unnecessary.

Personally, the only reason that I can see why this system is being introduced is the inate fear of flying that many people have.

wylo

A fear of flying is deeply psychological and is an irrational fear, this would do nothing to help people that already have a fear of flying.
But it may help in the long run, even if its only found to be useful on 2 or 3 occasions over the next few decades it could stand to be a very very important development in aviation safety.
But I get your point , the expense at the moment would be quite excessive, however as technology improves in the network/communication area I can this becoming a cheap standard method of recording flight data.

BrianD, what 'sufficient information' have they got from Air France?
Just curious, i havent been following the updates of this investigation, any links?

probe

BrianD wrote: »

Since the introduction of "data enabled" handsets e.g. the iPhone, mobile networks are struggling to convey the amount of data. Apparently networks in London and California have fallen over or come close to it due to the amount of data being transmitted.

While the iPhone has caused massive congestion on the AT&T networks - particularly in San Francisco, Las Vegas and NYC, I don't think this will be an issue with flight data streaming, if it is managed properly. The AT&T monopoly for iPhone is a big part of the problem in the US. (As an aside, in France, all mobile phone networks were required under competition law to be able to sell the iPhone from day one, and there is no congestion problem - because the traffic is spread over all the networks infrastructure).

By managed properly in the aviation context, I mean taking a minimalist approach to the traffic data elements that are streamed. 20% of the data being captured by black boxes probably provides 80% of the intelligence on the cause of accidents over the past say 30 years. The default number of data elements being streamed from a properly functioning aircraft on a problem-free flight could change if/when one or more parameters exceed specified thresholds. eg if a smoke detector gets triggered, or there is an engine fire, the data streaming could ramp up automatically to include cockpit voice records, video capture from the deck and cabin, as well as all the "vital signs" of the "patient".

Flying has become safer over the past 50 years, in no small way because of analyzing mistakes and system weaknesses and making sure they are not repeated.

Knowing that the EU appears to be in the driving seat on this, they will probably make a bureaucratic dog's dinner of the streaming requirement - requiring a HD camera to be installed next to each PAX's air supply vent which will be streamed down to planet earth, during the entire flight, to be vetted..... just in case there is a terrorist in 26E playing a video game designed to cause the pitot tubes to report that the aircraft is travelling at 1950 km/h. Like their brain dead ban on bottles of water over 1dl through airport security. Meanwhile shops on the airside are selling glass bottles (a weapon in themselves) of inflammable alcohol, perfumes and similar.