Do we really not record turbulence sensor data off the airplanes and download it when they’re on the ground?
I’m also surprised that these airplanes have on demand satellite TV streaming to these airplanes but airlines claim that it costs 100k to add that to existing planes. There’s just no way it’s 100k per plane - there must be a cheap way to retrofit the data without having it be reliable since it’s opportunistic. And heck, France is doing it every 4 minutes for their planes so why can’t Americans figure out how to do it.
> Do we really not record turbulence sensor data off the airplanes and download it when they’re on the ground?
No, accelerometer data is only recorded to the FDR. Which has a limited storage window (1-24 hours depending on the aircraft) and is slow to download requiring moderately specialized equipment and a technician to carry out the task. Aircraft downtime and technician hours are both expensive and in short supply.
> I’m also surprised that these airplanes have on demand satellite TV streaming to these airplanes but airlines claim that it costs 100k to add that to existing planes. There’s just no way it’s 100k per plane - there must be a cheap way to retrofit the data without having it be reliable since it’s opportunistic. And heck, France is doing it every 4 minutes for their planes so why can’t Americans figure out how to do it.
Everything on airplanes is expensive. Even cabin amenities. You have to prove it won't start a fire, was installed correctly, won't interfere with other equipment, won't interfere with the aircrafts structure, and again requires technician hours and aircraft downtime.
> No, accelerometer data is only recorded to the FDR. Which has a limited storage window
Apple and Google could fix this my streaming accelerometer data to the ground when people are connected to in-flight wifi. It is fairly easy to identify which phones out of a set are the stationary ones.
I find it hard to believe that the headsets they are using for software and hardware meet that level of criteria. They’re clearly using off-the-shelf parts. Some amount of care is called for sure, but 100k to apply a software patch or tweak the tech in FDRs which are swappable and upgradable? A flight recorder is 10k. You can’t tell me it costs 90k to install a new one capable of sending data over the satellite link in bursts. Clearly other countries and airlines with a similar safety record and cost of living and salaries are able to accomplish the feat.
You’re solving a human problem with technology. Pilots are resistant to data collection because of the proven track record of airlines using it against them. Unintended consequences are fatal in aviation. Saying “it ought to be easy” is an immediately disqualifying statement. You should ask instead why it is so expensive. Then decide if there’s a margin worth eroding.
What human problem am I solving with technology? I’m just saying we should have public data about turbulence so that we can understand changes to the jet stream. I’m not talking about making planes safer or solving human errors. I’m not sure how this data could possibly be used against pilots. I’m not talking about recording the cockpit; just the sensor data about what the plane is doing and experiencing.
> You should ask instead why it is so expensive.
That is literally my question. I’m highlighting that 100k seems really high to make a system that opportunistically transmits data we are already capturing locally. Rather than a flippant “airplanes should be expensive”, why not ask what is the cheapest retrofit we can do that doesn’t change the safety profile. As I said, this system should not be in the critical path and shouldn’t be a required other than the airplanes should generally be maintaining it to be functional (i.e. the SLA can be 75-90% and still provide tremendous value instead of the 100% SLA target for flight critical components which is what that 100k price tag sounds like).
That this is something highlighted by crash investigators as something that would help in corner cases like incidents over the ocean is just gravy.
Meanwhile an accelerometer, microcontroller and a years worth of storage for the data probably all could be made with $5 worth of parts and a summer intern...
Oh come on. It's not like raspberrypi is going to force plane down.
Also there's likely 200 accelerometers on board already. Onboard wifi is becoming ubiquitous. Perhaps an app that trades in wifi time for accelerometer time would be good trade-off. And wouldn't require tons of certification.
Well, you have to have paperwork claiming it was installed correctly. You don't _have_ to install it correctly. See e.g. doors installed so correctly that they blow out in flight etc.
What's the point of your comment? Should we just install a bunch of accelerometers on planes with faked paperwork because some people faked some paperwork somtime?
Sounds like you're upset at Boeing and figured you would tell us you're upset on an unrelated thread. Note that it doesn't really matter if you are right to be upset at Boeing or not. It's still unrelated.
I think his point is that the proof is expensive, not the act itself. Reminds me of rivets in composites joined by adhesives. The benefit is inspectability. The cost is diminished strength.
Proof that it was installed and working correctly is super easy. Multiple airlines fly the same route. The airlines should be feeding the data to the government and the government can cross-validate that the data is legit for routes that have more than 2 airlines. + the jet stream is quite large so even not the exact same route should still be able to highlight airlines doing fraudulent data by. If they’re not sending data, that’s also super easy to tell.
At some point the cost of trying to lie and cut corners becomes worse than the cost of compliance and the airlines and airplane companies will just become good at doing a good job here.
Making sure this whole operation is set up sounds like a lot of work to me. If you find setting up this kind of thing super easy, I think you should just do it. The benefits seem readily apparent.
Some aircraft are equipped with a system that records parameters in flight, and sends it via 4G when on the ground. This is used for preventive maintenance mostly. It’s a service that’s more and more common.
Yeah I feel like the FAA should require the airlines to share some of the data so we get research into the jet stream that we can cross correlate with other data sources.
There's essentially no cheap way to add anything to an airplane. Most changes will require extensive testing, verification, and sometimes certification when it comes to planes.
But anyway, where are you seeing a claim that it costs $100k to record and save turbulence sensor data? I don't see anyone upthread claiming that, and the article doesn't touch on it at all.
I read it in another article on the topic researching before commenting. Just didn’t bother to cite it but that was the official reason given as to why America doesn’t do this.
If satelite TV is down, some passengers are mildly annoyed. If a regulatory required part of the aircraft is non-functional, you're not going flying today.
You’re saying it’s impossible to have an optionally required feature? If the satellite TV is down some sensor data isn’t sent. Why would that be cause for grounding the plane? You could easily make the regulation an SLA like all routes flown must be sending data for 90% of the flights on that route for the month and failures to meet the SLA are investigated.
Also I’ve flown a bunch and I’ve rarely seen the Internet link go out except where there’s technical limitations like crossing the ocean where they can’t maintain an internet and have to rely on preprogrammed content. Given how much money they make from cabin internet, the airlines are clearly incentivized to apply pressure to keep those things running. I doubt I’ve seen anyone be really annoyed when there’s technical difficulties. Most people who fall into that category would have made other arrangements for entertainment anyway.
I’m also surprised that these airplanes have on demand satellite TV streaming to these airplanes but airlines claim that it costs 100k to add that to existing planes. There’s just no way it’s 100k per plane - there must be a cheap way to retrofit the data without having it be reliable since it’s opportunistic. And heck, France is doing it every 4 minutes for their planes so why can’t Americans figure out how to do it.