
Aviation is stuck in the 60s – a reflection on MH 370 - gmazzotti
http://english.martinvarsavsky.net/general/aviation-is-stuck-in-the-60s-a-reflection-on-mh-370.html
======
adrinavarro
Most modern airliners have satellite links (data and voice) with their
dispatch centers. They also use the ACARS system to send and receive
clearances (they can acknowledge by pushing a button). The old SELCAL+HF radio
is no longer in use, except for backup.

Planes have GPS trackers. Not only their company knows where they are, the
control center can too. In the case of the north atlantic track system, air
control keeps a tight eye on speed, altitude and separation with very precise
measurements, even as airplanes are far away from land.

I just fail to see the point of this post. I recently hitched a ride on the
cockpit jump seat of a modern airplane for a Europe-East Coast flight and
during that I saw the air traffic control knowing exactly where we were, and
the pilots communicating via text message (ACARS) with control, as well as
using satellite links to contact dispatch (via text messages), as well as
satellite phone calls.

Pilots keep paper around them because pilots are there to maintain control,
and paper is just another failsafe (with pretty good reliability record!).

Bonus: some planes can notice alterations in the flight dynamics and report an
ice buildup. No pilot in this planet is going to let any external person input
flight parameters remotely into their aircraft's system while they are in the
air.

~~~
frik
> I just fail to see the point of this post.

Haven't you read about the missing aircraft?

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is a missing international passenger flight
operated by a Boeing 777-200ER aircraft:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370)

At least two of the passengers were travelling using false identities (stolen
passports, tickets bought at the same time).

Edit: last known position:
[http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/16:46/12x/MAS370/2d8...](http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/16:46/12x/MAS370/2d81a27)

~~~
greyskull
Oh wow. If it's straight-up missing they could be anywhere in Asia right
now... nuts.

~~~
mikeash
Not likely. It was at cruising altitude and then vanished off the radar screen
after sudden maneuvering. If it had diverted it would have continued to be
tracked on radar. Even if they had shut off transponders and such, primary
surveillance radar would have continued to see them. It almost certainly
experienced a sudden catastrophic failure in flight (and I would bet due to a
bomb).

~~~
bruceb
Or not a bomb, just some maintenance problem. No group claims responsibility.
The point of bombing seems to be to strike fear and send a message. The
passport thing is curious but stolen/fake passports can be of use for other
things that are nothing to do with terrorism.

~~~
mikeash
Indeed. My money is on "bomb" just because it's hard to come up with a
maintenance problem that causes such a rapid disaster at altitude. It would
have to be something that caused a massive explosion like TWA 800. Possible,
but unlikely. The lack of a claim makes a bombing less likely too, but IMO
less so than the improbability of a mechanical problem.

~~~
jbg_
Sudden explosive decompression?

~~~
hga
Bingo, e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611)

Or other examples that manage to disable enough of the flight controls but
don't immediately break up the plane

~~~
mikeash
As I understand it, you'd expect such a thing to happen during the climb.
That's what happened with your linked flight 611, if I'm reading between the
lines correctly, and it's what happened on e.g. Aloha 243. In general it would
make sense that the failure would typically make itself known as the stress on
the fuselage is increasing, not after it's reached a steady state. Not that
it's _impossible_ , but the fact that this flight was at cruising altitude for
a while before it disappeared would seem to be an argument against this
possibility.

~~~
hga
Also true for
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123),
the event happened "at near cruising altitude". Although I wouldn't say a
plane once cruising is entirely steady state, there are winds and such. But,
yeah, as you climb stress on the pressure vessel increases and that's when
you'd expect a flaw to manifest.

------
KaiserPro
It may be stuck in the 60's but HF radios _work_

sure you can create an automated dispatch system on an iPad. How do you
authenticate it? how do you tell if its not working? does it fail safe? Making
safe software is hard, and well beyond the wit of your standard programmer.

After all, can you gaurentee your software when the CPU is at 100%? can you
say with certainty what happens when your CPU is hammered by all the
interrupts at the same time?

Everything in the whole stack has to be verified. Thats means no
virutalisation, no ruby, no perl, no python no ethernet. You can have firewire
400 though.

One can almost guarantee that this plane crash did not crash because of a
failure in ATC<->Pilot communication.

~~~
gmu3
At times like this, I'm reminded of the Mars Curiosity's tech specs which are
something like 200MHz, 256MB of RAM, 2GB hd,and 2MP camera and all the posts
about how my iPhone is so much better. Well it was good enough to get to Mars
and a hell of a lot more reliable.

~~~
lisper
Some of the research rovers we built before Sojourner had 8-bit processors
with 2k EEPROM and 256 bytes of RAM. Back then there were people who thought
we were crazy for thinking that some day we would be able to fly with the same
8MB of RAM that was in our MacII development machines.

------
_pferreir_
Most modern aircraft have GPS receivers built-in. They are actually constantly
reporting this information to ground stations [1].

I'm not saying that things couldn't be better (and I'm no expert at all) but I
doubt that any of these new technologies would have saved MH370.

It's very weird, for instance, that the ground station that reports to
flightracker24 lost ADS-B communication with the plane all of a sudden and
it's pretty clear from the number of planes that you can see in the area that
it is probably not a coverage issue.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aviation)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_\(aviation\))

~~~
frik
Is a Boeing 777-200ER (introduced 1997) a modern aircraft in your opinion?

It seems that Flight 370 had GPS tracking (flightradar24.com screenshot):
[http://www.voanews.com/content/vietnam-navy-official-
missing...](http://www.voanews.com/content/vietnam-navy-official-missing-
malaysia-airliner-crashed-into-south-china-sea/1867053.html)

Direct link:
[http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/16:46/12x/MAS370/2d8...](http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/16:46/12x/MAS370/2d81a27)

------
krisoft
So having internet would somehow magically solve all the problems. Also it
doesn't seem to be written out clearly, but there seems to be the implied
assumption that Air France Flight 447 had no GPS tracker. Which is false. It
did have, and automatically reported it's position at certain intervals.

~~~
joezydeco
Good point. On-board internet works great when the aircraft is at level and
stable flight. It's a lot harder to transmit to a satellite in the middle of
the ocean when the plane is gyrating and tossing all over the place (as in the
case of AF447).

All bets are also off when the plane has had a catastrophic loss of power.

------
DanielBMarkham
Hopefully the author is reading this, as I have some structural comments.

First, I agree with your thesis. In fact, I'd argue General Aviation is stuck
in the 1950s. Lots of reasons for that, including the cost of insurance.

Second, I had a hard time reading this, as you seem to lack the ability to
form cohesive paragraphs. Very sorry to have to tell you, but I figured
somebody should. Nobody can read a big wall of text where each paragraph is
trying to say several different things at the same time.

Best of luck in future drafts.

------
RogerL
I am by no means an aviation expert, but my career was largely built on things
like putting GPS and modern radios into military aircraft, writing flight
planners, and so on.

I ask you to envision the logistics of a simple change. You want to implement
X, and gee-whiz do I have some cool, new technology that makes it easy!!

Okay. Let's start. If we make mistakes people die, and careers end. I'll let
you draw your own conclusions about motivations re that, but all I'll say is
as an engineer I only ever focused on the former. So, huge testing and
verification effort to show that my gee-whiz technology that works in some
consumer device has acceptably low failure modes, does not negatively affect
pilot work flow, can work under the conditions of flight (-55C to 70C
anyone?), over the wide performance characteristics (high G, high vibration,
salt water, high radiation), and so on.

Okay, you did all that! Let's start bolting it on the planes!

No.

Let's write and get approved training programs for all the maintenance
workers. Then, let's train them - across the whole world. Let's write and get
approved training programs for the pilot. We will fit it into their refresher
training, have new mandated training, or what? Basically, rewrite all the
training curriculum that is out there. Get it into the schools, so the pilots
coming fresh out of school aren't behind. Again, across the world.

Oh, this interfaces with the towers? Okay, so do all that again with the
towers. Hmm, you want this 2013 technology to seamlessly integrate with some
core memory technology - that should be easy. Perform a study, put out RFQs,
get bids, select the best bidder, have them build the system, manage them
through the cost overrun, opps, 3 months before deployment Congress mandates
that that core-memory system be retired, and oh, how will this work in the 168
other countries?

Got that sorted. No, wait, no one in the tower knows how to use it, no one
knows how to install it, no one knows how to maintain it. Let's throw money
and time at that! Oh, unions. I hate unions. ATCs have a union. This could
take awhile....

Finally, it is 2020, and I am rolling out, um, 7 year old technology that is
entirely obsolete and no longer supported by the manufacturers. Oh, they'll
support it if you throw enough money at it - get your $5 microprocessor at
$1000 a pop.

Meanwhile, the entire world is _filled_ with aircraft still using the old
system. So, we mandate a phase-out by 2035. Just another 15 years of
supporting the old and new systems in parallel. I'm sure that'll be pretty
cheap.

People who work in the field will rightly accuse me of hand waving, and
especially of over-exaggerating some difficulties (not every modernization
project hits every possible snag that exists). But this is still a useful
sketch the scope of the problem. I've spent time talking to very high people
in the FAA. They are not unaware of the old systems and their limitations, nor
are they bumbling bureaucrats (pet peeve - it is easy to villanize faceless
people, and that is very lazy thinking). We in industry are forever proposing
new ideas, better technology, and so on (let's face it, they are all trying to
feed at the trough of government spending, and getting your system mandated is
a company maker). But the price tag for my handy,dandy system is at the noise
level compared to the cost of the logistics of deployment.

I am not arguing that there is nothing to be done, or that everyone is working
maximally efficiently right now. Certainly the US is behind other countries in
some areas of aviation technology. But it is not in any way a trivial problem,
one of "just bolt a new radio to the plane and trash the old ecosystem".

edit: consider, for example, the Rockwell Collins DTU-7000 Data Transfer
Module
([https://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/Produc...](https://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/Products/Computing/Storage_Solutions/DTU-7000_Data_Transfer_Unit.aspx)).
This is absolutely modern hardware in the aviation world. It is PCMCIA. And
how exciting it was to get. You would not believe the cost and size of the old
system - we would jealously keep tracking logs of, I forget, a few MB of flash
memory units that cost thousands and thousands (and thousands) of dollars.
There is some even more modern stuff being rolled out that uses usb. But
consider, when this is something that contains your flight plan, your maps,
and so on, the cost of a stray gamma ray blowing away a byte. Mull on how much
testing this hardware goes through. And then factor in all of the logistics
above. We already don't have money to own the old system, and now I have to go
to all this further expense, to save what is truly chump change (that
thousands and thousands and thousands number) in the end? Millions to save
thousands.

Of course, we have to modernize, we can't store rich maps on tiny memory, so
we spend, and spend, and spend. And then get a front page HN story about how
old everything is! Well, there's a reason for that.

~~~
nawitus
If bureaucracy prevents new technology of being adopted quickly, then that
bureaucracy actually decreases safety, even if it's goal is to increase
safety. Yes, adopting new technology increases some risks, but also decreases
others. The good thing is that usually you can have both systems on at the
same time. If the internet connection and GPS fails, it's not difficult to
fall back to the existing technology.

~~~
KaiserPro
Well no.

What happens when the GPS says one thing, and the "internet" says another?

what takes precedence?

The "Internet" isn't safe, reliable or even bullet proof.

New technology isn't a golden bullet. Often its just a re-invention of the
wheel. (whatsapp for example, is just MMS without the guaranteed delivery.)

I don't want my plane being crammed full of shiny new tech, especially if its
not proven. Th reason why there is bureaucracy is to make things safe.

~~~
nawitus
Well, you're just attacking a strawmen. "Proven" is not a binary value, there
are degrees of proof when we're talking about aviation technology. One can
reduce bureaucracy while still leaving a justified amount of bureaucracy.

As for preference, it's already norm that there's a multiple different input
sensors, and the autopilot and the real pilot has to deduce the correct value.
(Good example is air speed, see Air France Flight 447).

------
al2o3cr
"Imagine if you had a telephone system in which you had to listen to everyone
else’s conversations until somebody finally spoke to you."

Now imagine that everybody on the alternative secret phone system is flying
around hundreds of passengers who'll be killed if somebody misdirects a call
with important instructions.

I've found that, in general, if one's reaction to a practice is "WTF, is
literally everybody else in this industry stoopid?" it usually means the
opposite...

------
frik
Can an aviation expert decipher the following data?

    
    
      MH370/MAS370
      Boing 777-2H6ER
      Registration 9M-MRO
      Altitude 0ft
      Speed 471 kt
      Track 40°
      Vertical Speed 0 fpm
      Lattitude: 6.97
      Longitude: 103.63
      Radar: F-WMKC1
      Squawk: 2157
    

source:
[http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/16:46/12x/MAS370/2d8...](http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/16:46/12x/MAS370/2d81a27#./2d81a27?&_suid=139439012725505032063548222576)

That particular airplane was delivered new to Malaysia Airlines in May 2002
and was involved in a ground mishap in 2012. While taxiing at Shanghai's
Pudong airport, its wingtip hit the tail of another aircraft. According to an
independent accident-tracking site, the damage suffered by the Boeing 777 was
"substantial.": [http://aviation-
safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147571](http://aviation-
safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147571)

~~~
yock
Probably an incomplete or corrupt report. It would be an incredible
coincidence of timing for the system to produce a location data point
precisely at the moment that the aircraft hit the water and before the system
was destroyed. This is probably an incomplete report when aircraft left the
coverage area or if the system malfunctioned mid-air and mid-transmission.

------
tsotha
The last thing I want to see is internet in the cockpit. What _hasn 't_ been
hacked over the last few years?

------
lttlrck
Does weather change that drastically over the duration of an average flight?

Pilots get weather forecasts before take-off, are they inadequate? How does
knowing the weather at the destination help with the immediate task of flying
a plane through a thunderstorm that you knew was going to be there anyway and
you can see on your radar?

How more weather information change the impact of a major weather event e.g.
East Coast winter storm, on air travel? I don't see how it could, the
decisions are made far ahead of time because weather forecasts are pretty
good.

------
bitcuration
The only modernization needed is elimination of human pilot all together out
of the loop. Then there is no training, union, or endless testing, as the
robot is fail safe just like there have always been more than one engine in
commercial airplane.

Purposefully staying behind the technology curve is not a "safe" strategy,
aviation is not alone in this obsolete thinking bias, the same is seen in
utility, automobile industry too.

------
philipn
I don't know much about aviation, but a number of these technologies are being
implemented in commercial flights now, including NextGen
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Transportat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Transportation_System)).

------
sudomal
I'm sure I saw a documentary a few years back where an aeroplane engine
manufacturer had a control centre. The sole purpose of this place was to track
minute engine attributes in real time, and alert their clients of future
maintenance. Is that just on the latest planes?

~~~
rwmj
A lot of airlines hire the engines by the (flight-) hour, and those engines
are monitored in real time by the manufacturer. For example:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8111075/Live-
mo...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8111075/Live-monitoring-
helps-engine-manufacturers-track-performance.html)

------
anovikov
Every commercial airplane has a GPS tracker and a transmitter which sends its
vital info on air, which everyone can receive and track on sites like
[http://www.flightradar24.com/](http://www.flightradar24.com/) .

------
kyberias
Interesting ideas. Just a quick note about the layout of the blog text: font
and line spacing are too small and the text column is too wide. The
combination makes it a little hard to read. Plus points on not having grey
text on grey background though.

------
spiritplumber
Aviation is stuck in the 60s because if it wasn't airliner stuff would all be
automatic.

~~~
twistedpair
@spiritplumber, I can only assume you've never flown a plane or used a flight
simulator (MS Flight will do).

Today's airliners are incredibly advanced. In the 60's they didn't have
Terrain Collision Avoidance. Try to fly the plane into a hill and alarms go
off and tell you how rapidly to ascent. They didn't have automated traffic
collision avoidance (TCAS). Fly two planes at each other and it tells one
pilot to dive, the other to climb and how much. They didn't have stick shakers
which alert the pilot if the plane is near stalling, before it stalls, so they
know to gain air speed to prevent the stall.

Those are the basic standards. Today any aircraft worth it's salt has a full
Doppler weather radar to avoid storms, hail and down drafts. Today the entire
flight path is computer calculated and tracked from end to end. Just turn on
auto pilot or keep the indicators aligned on your artificial horizon and
you'll get where you're going. No one gets lost these days without trying.
I've not going to even start on CatII and CatIII landings too. Today planes
can land in 0, that right 0, visibility.

> if it wasn't airliner stuff would all be automatic

But let's keep going. Ever heard of AutoLand? Yep, plane can land itself. Ever
heard of AutoFlare? Yep, plane will tilt back at just the right angle for a
pillow soft touch down. Ever heard of AutoThrottle? No need to keep adjusting
those engines, plane takes care of that, just tell it where you want to go.
Frankly, pilots rarely do much more than tell the plane what it should do.
Want to go to flight level 380? Just turn the knob to 38000ft, set the desired
vertical speed rate and the plane will adjust the throttles, ailerons and trim
itself out at 38000ft for you. Want to go to heading 245? Just dial in 245
degrees the plane will take your speed into consideration and speed up just
enough to keep everything constant through the curve.

Funny thing about automation though is not getting everything automated, but
keeping pilots from getting stale because too much is automated. Take the
Asiana flight, it's what we call Controlled Flight into Terrain. Not a thing
wrong with that 777 but the pilot.

We're worlds away from the 1960's and the 777 is among the most sophisticated
and advanced craft in the world. Far more advanced than even our spacecraft of
the 1960's.

~~~
will_asouka
Autoland is 60s tech
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland).

But TCAS and GPS-aware Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) are
90s, and automation vs maintaining flying skill is definitely a major
challenge.

~~~
twistedpair
Indeed Autoland started deployment in the 60's, though not in a pervasive
sense until decades later. Point on that was that we've had a lot of
automation for in aircraft for some time. :)

------
paul_f
I cannot believe I am doing this, but .... how about a few paragraph breaks
once in a while?

------
tuzemec
The moment we saw bunch of aviation articles on HN and that plane disappears.
Coincident?

------
tuzemec
The moment we saw bunch of aviation articles on HN and that plane disappears.
Coincidence?

