Airbus choose data streaming to replace black boxes
Inmarsat's comments, specifically the Chief of Flight Safety's, seem a tad naïve. I wonder if they really know about flight data analysis, the investigative process and flight safety work.
Privacy, confidentiality and assurances of data security seem to have been brushed aside in favour of "exciting new technologies that can prevent crashes". I've seen/heard this before. So far, this is just so much marketing hype.
In terms of tracking & locating technology, it has existed for some time - we have been using it to follow our aircraft locally and around the world. It is real-time interrogation using web-based interfaces with user-selected 30" to 10' polling periods. I have no idea why tracking is such an issue; we've been doing it for at least six years now; we know where our aircraft are all the time. And, for a price, it can do parameter/event monitoring say, for high-acceleration events for example, so that maintenance can meet the aircraft based upon data not crew reports, etc. It isn't an entire DFDR process but it could be sufficient for initial explanations and certainly LKPs.
In terms of retro-fitting for deployable recorders and/or streaming data, I would argue against the concept, and against an industry-wide, regulatory requirement.
All recorders in recent over-water accidents have been recovered and read with perhaps one exception, the Asiana B744 freighter loss over the Korean Straits.
Acknowledging that, like all human activities, aviation works on risk probabilities, the design and engineering manufacturer's groups of the industry work on the basis of what an acceptable failure rate of mission-critical elements/components is; the certification standard is, as some here will know already, 10^-9.
We can reasonably consider that the loss of MH370 is such an event to which the same standard may be applied, and that the "normal" pattern is the historical one in which in all cases, above exception noted, the recorders have been recovered and accidents understood.
The argument for deployable recorders & datastreaming is essentially an economic one only, and that is a different arena than the case for flight safety. Such standards (for flight safety), are borne by the industry and ICAO member countries when/where accidents occur, and yes, it is expensive but also extremely rare.
I think the case for deployable recorders/data-streaming has not been demonstrated against this accepted standard. I think what we are seeing is a bandwagon response, not flight safety work.
If we are to invest significant funds and the ensuing subsequent certification/regulatory work at all in changing the way aircraft recordings are done, it would be reasonable to focus on power sources for both the data and voice recorders.
Public cries for instant sources of data do not demonstrate the flight safety case for such capability, they demonstrate a willingness to engage in media and political arugments. But with recent information regarding MR804, we may again be faced with a loss of power to the recorders and loss of data which inhibits understanding of the accident.
Ensuring that recorders have uninterruptible sources of power is a flight safety case, and as such is demonstrable.
Factors which are necessary to consider are not limited to electrical system auto-responses to load-shedding and/or damage to wiring through fire or mechanical processes etc., but also loss of electrical power through the intentional use of emergency electrical configuration drills which are intended to remove all power from normal AC & DC busses during smoke of unknown origin emergency drills.
Privacy, confidentiality and assurances of data security seem to have been brushed aside in favour of "exciting new technologies that can prevent crashes". I've seen/heard this before. So far, this is just so much marketing hype.
In terms of tracking & locating technology, it has existed for some time - we have been using it to follow our aircraft locally and around the world. It is real-time interrogation using web-based interfaces with user-selected 30" to 10' polling periods. I have no idea why tracking is such an issue; we've been doing it for at least six years now; we know where our aircraft are all the time. And, for a price, it can do parameter/event monitoring say, for high-acceleration events for example, so that maintenance can meet the aircraft based upon data not crew reports, etc. It isn't an entire DFDR process but it could be sufficient for initial explanations and certainly LKPs.
In terms of retro-fitting for deployable recorders and/or streaming data, I would argue against the concept, and against an industry-wide, regulatory requirement.
All recorders in recent over-water accidents have been recovered and read with perhaps one exception, the Asiana B744 freighter loss over the Korean Straits.
Acknowledging that, like all human activities, aviation works on risk probabilities, the design and engineering manufacturer's groups of the industry work on the basis of what an acceptable failure rate of mission-critical elements/components is; the certification standard is, as some here will know already, 10^-9.
We can reasonably consider that the loss of MH370 is such an event to which the same standard may be applied, and that the "normal" pattern is the historical one in which in all cases, above exception noted, the recorders have been recovered and accidents understood.
The argument for deployable recorders & datastreaming is essentially an economic one only, and that is a different arena than the case for flight safety. Such standards (for flight safety), are borne by the industry and ICAO member countries when/where accidents occur, and yes, it is expensive but also extremely rare.
I think the case for deployable recorders/data-streaming has not been demonstrated against this accepted standard. I think what we are seeing is a bandwagon response, not flight safety work.
If we are to invest significant funds and the ensuing subsequent certification/regulatory work at all in changing the way aircraft recordings are done, it would be reasonable to focus on power sources for both the data and voice recorders.
Public cries for instant sources of data do not demonstrate the flight safety case for such capability, they demonstrate a willingness to engage in media and political arugments. But with recent information regarding MR804, we may again be faced with a loss of power to the recorders and loss of data which inhibits understanding of the accident.
Ensuring that recorders have uninterruptible sources of power is a flight safety case, and as such is demonstrable.
Factors which are necessary to consider are not limited to electrical system auto-responses to load-shedding and/or damage to wiring through fire or mechanical processes etc., but also loss of electrical power through the intentional use of emergency electrical configuration drills which are intended to remove all power from normal AC & DC busses during smoke of unknown origin emergency drills.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is about just fair weather level flight tracking, Panasonic already announced their IFE system will be able to do that.
Of course you can mount antennae around the fuselage or make entire fuselage as phased array to make this work most of the time, it would cost a fortune.
And with Brexit, why would an EU consortium promote Inmarsat. There are cheaper options out there.
Of course you can mount antennae around the fuselage or make entire fuselage as phased array to make this work most of the time, it would cost a fortune.
And with Brexit, why would an EU consortium promote Inmarsat. There are cheaper options out there.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At best, this would be something of a 'proof of concept' - the FDR and CVR would still be required as I don't see the feds changing the regulations anytime soon. Any attempt at obtained an "ELOS" (Equivalent Level of Safety) for at satellite based system to allow removal of the FDR and CVR would get laughed out of the office.
Before the regulators would even consider changing the regulations, or even an ELOS, you'd need tens, no hundreds of millions of operational hours, plus a significant number of actual crash events where it's demonstrated that the satellite based system provided better (or at least as good as) information than the conventional FDR/CVR systems, and NO events where the satellite system didn't provide equivalent data.
Maybe in a couple decades...
Before the regulators would even consider changing the regulations, or even an ELOS, you'd need tens, no hundreds of millions of operational hours, plus a significant number of actual crash events where it's demonstrated that the satellite based system provided better (or at least as good as) information than the conventional FDR/CVR systems, and NO events where the satellite system didn't provide equivalent data.
Maybe in a couple decades...
It might be possible with the correct antenna array to maintain contact with a LEO satellite system using omnidirectional antennae and cellular style technology. But even there that would have to be proved. As a test an aerobatic aircraft should be fitted with the proposed systems then depart normal straight and level flight and carry out a series of extreme maneuvers from height down to sea level. Assess whether the satellite link worked. This should be extremely simple to do. It should be done before any expenditure by any party.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
INMARSAT's IP station addressing scheme overcomes the satellite transponder limitation - allowing for a dramatic increase in the number of uplink users as well as improved data bandwidth - both requirements for any industry-wide satellite streaming system.
However, the proposed ICAO guidance only suggests the need for transmission of data recorder information for aircraft in distress. This would seem to fit the current and near-future state of tech with the number of commercial aircraft in service.
I would imagine traditional local recording DFDR and CVR's would still be installed and used in parallel with SATCOM streaming per the proposed ICAO "distress" standard.
However, the proposed ICAO guidance only suggests the need for transmission of data recorder information for aircraft in distress. This would seem to fit the current and near-future state of tech with the number of commercial aircraft in service.
I would imagine traditional local recording DFDR and CVR's would still be installed and used in parallel with SATCOM streaming per the proposed ICAO "distress" standard.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Mosquitoville
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure I understand. I didn't see anything in the article that says that Inmarsat's technology replaces local data and voice logging with wireless connection
I mean to suggest that would be like saying cloud based storage can totally replace RAM and hard drive.
I'm assuming Inmarsat's product goal is something that integrates voice and data logging with satellite connections which could have some definite benefits... and some extra costs and maybe some unintended consequences.
The use of the words in the Guardian article like "obsolete" and "game changer" to describe this seem more like marketing types running amok.
I mean why should an airline want this?
...and I'm afraid of the real answer....
I mean to suggest that would be like saying cloud based storage can totally replace RAM and hard drive.
I'm assuming Inmarsat's product goal is something that integrates voice and data logging with satellite connections which could have some definite benefits... and some extra costs and maybe some unintended consequences.
The use of the words in the Guardian article like "obsolete" and "game changer" to describe this seem more like marketing types running amok.
I mean why should an airline want this?
...and I'm afraid of the real answer....
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a risk of putting a cat amongst the pigeons CVR should stand for Cockpit Video Recording.
Many people now work under constant video surveillance, and with the proper safeguards, a Video is going to give far more information in the event ...
Many people now work under constant video surveillance, and with the proper safeguards, a Video is going to give far more information in the event ...
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: France
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GHOTI, do you think that video recording has been imagined to be useful for one accident only ? It might well give more info in other cases.
BTW, I'm not at all an expert in any aviation domain, and therefore I won't comment on the pro and cons of this video idea ; it's just that your focus on AF447 seems a rather weak argument to me.
BTW, I'm not at all an expert in any aviation domain, and therefore I won't comment on the pro and cons of this video idea ; it's just that your focus on AF447 seems a rather weak argument to me.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A satellite up-link would certainly complement the existing Black Boxes and whilst I doubt it will replace them (connections drop out etc.) it would certainly allow a) greater accuracy in wreckage finding b) access to some/all data without *having* to retrieve the boxes c) recording of additional parameters such as video (as ExXB suggested). Many planes now have cameras in the tail, on the belly (A380, A350...) they might be able to provide additional data or show an object (drone!?) that happened to be ingested into an engine, for example.
