Like you, I’ve been reading about Air France flight 447, and the 228 people who perished when it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. As an engineer, I’ve been wondering why we know so little of what happened, and if somehow the tragedy might have been prevented by existing technology not employed on the plane.
Our society is able to accomplish spectacular technical feats, such as sending people 226,800 miles from the Earth to the Moon, and back again safely, as well as seemingly mundane technical feats, such as determining the precise location of a stolen car, via its GPS device, for the police.
If we can do that, why can’t we keep track of planes crossing oceans well enough to immediately locate them in case of problems, and know what’s going on in them, on a real time basis?
When the Apollo 13 had its explosion 200,000 miles from Earth, ground engineers knew everything which was going on, in seconds, and was able to give radio support to the crew, which helped save their lives, and when it landed, we knew precisely where it would be.
Why can’t we do that with planes crossing the ocean?
The Atlantic Ocean is generally cold enough that a person in the water, wearing street clothing, would suffer hypothermia quickly. If a plane crashes in the Atlantic, it’s critical to immediately locate the crash site, if anyone is to be saved.
We know even inexpensive battery operated GPS receivers for cars, and in cell phones report longitude, latitude, altitude, and compass direction, plus speed if moving. We know that flight 447 was sending back data automatically to Air France.
Michael Boyd, a Colorado-based airline analyst, asks the question I’ve been pondering. “The technology’s there — we’ve had this stuff for 15 years and little’s happened. My BlackBerry can be used to track me, so why can’t we do it with planes?”
If Air France flight 447 would have continuously sent back its GPS location, altitude and speed information, when the plane crashed, via its Aircraft Communication, Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS), rescuers could have been immediately sent to the precise spot it went down, to see if anyone survived, and hopefully pluck them out of the water before hypothermia killed them. Don’t tell me about the plane’s power failing. Their electronic systems could be powered after primary power failure via a UPS backup.
Moreover, if the planes speed instrumentation was reporting faulty information, as is now feared, the GPS speed information, if relayed via ACARS to Air France, could have been used in a comparison, and a warning sent to the flight crew. Better yet, the GPS speed information should have been automatically compared to the planes speed instrumentation for verification by the plane’s internal computers, and an alarm sounded if there was a significant difference.
Apparently, it is up to each airline to determine how much and what information is sent through the plane’s data signal. There is currently no regulation by any governmental entity regarding ACARS data transmission and reporting.
Most everyone is aware of the “black boxes,” the plane’s data and voice recorder boxes designed to withstand crashes to help investigators determine why and how a crash occurred. Air France flight 447’s black boxes are at the bottom of the very deep Atlantic Ocean, and likely will never be recovered. I don’t know about you, but I think it’s insane they don’t float, especially considering that according to Jim Hall, former NTSB head under the Clinton Administration, the U.S. military has been using floating “black boxes” for years.
Here’s my quick list of what the world’s government aviation regulators and commercial aviation industry should do in the wake of the Air France tragedy. Within one year, all commercial aircraft flying out of radar range, and within five years, all commercial aircraft, should be required to:
1. Install GPS instrumentation which will indicate a plane’s location, flight direction, altitude and airspeed to the flight crew, the airline, and governmental flight control. The plane shall continuously and automatically compare those readings to the plane’s internal instrumentation to determine if a possible instrumentation failure occurs, and alert all parties if one is suspected. The GPS instrumentation should have a UPS backup.
2. Install ACARS instrumentation monitoring, and data transmission of all critical functions and data of the aircraft to the airline, and specific information such as GPS information to flight control as well. The ACARS should have a UPS backup.
3. The “black box” system used on U.S. military aircraft should be installed on commercial aircraft, with the standard “black boxes” continued to be installed and a duplicate pair installed which can be automatically ejected from the plane which will float, when necessary.
The expense of these improvements, as far as I’m concerned, is more than worth it, considering the lives which could be saved.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
In a perfect world, what you described is how it would be.
The problem is the cost, cost-benefit analysis, probability of occurance, regulations, contracts, etc. make these changes unwanted by airlines.
Technology today is to the point that airplanes can be flown totally by computers, and you’d replace the “Whoop whoop! Terrain! Pull up!” warning which tells pilots of impending impact with ground into “Whoop whoop! Terrain! Take your hands off the controls!” and the autopilot will prevent ground impact. The problem here is that pilots and the airlines overwhelmingly rejected the allowing of computers to override pilots flying the plane… despite the fact aircraft manufacturers felt they should implement the technology because it would save lives. This technology was available 10 years ago, but to date no aircraft has it installed. There have been zero occurences where the technology has been needed, thus, it seems the airlines were correct to not implement the technology because it is cheaper… Seems like airlines are gambling with lives, but the travelling public has no idea, and doesn’t care.
It’s a classic example of a financial advisor or risk-benefit adviser looking at statistical data, and determining that the chance of requiring a certain technology is so slim that it makes no economical sense to implement the technology.
Just because your cell phone can be easily tracked, does not mean it will work the same way at 30,000 feet amidst other advanced technology. Not to mention the testing and reliability requirement to be implemented onto the aircraft. The cost, per aircraft, would increase the cost of tickets in a time when people already choose not to fly.
According to statistics, the chance of requiring this GPS tracking technology is so slim, that it is of mathematical insignificance, therefore won’t be installed. Sounds ridiculous right? It is! The whole tracking ability is a SAFETY issue, and will ultimately PROTECT LIVES… but makes no economical, no business, and no profit gains at all, and since airlines are businesses, they won’t implement the technology UNTIL an event like Air France occurs. Now the airlines can make profit, advertising their GPS tracking to passengers and advertising safety, pulling in more business.
Profiting off of an accident… again, reverse thinking, but the way it is. This is the airline business. The business of playing with lives.
on the other hand the autopilot of the turkish airways plane that crashed in the netherlands thought is was on the grond and idled the engines (at 2000 ft in the air)
the pilots trusted the auto pilot and did not even notice the engines were out, the plane slowing down etc. And when they noticed, they did the wrong things
the ideal situation is a well trained crew, a well maintained aircraft and if possible double independent systems that allow a failure by 1 of 3 (incl crew) to be caught before it is a problem. putting the reigns in the hands of 1 system human of electronic will cause accidents
GPS can’t determine airspeed, only groundspeed! The airspeed is the speed of the plane relative to the air – a satellite can’t tell that. Unfortunately, groundspeed is irrelevant when it comes to aerodynamic behavior.
In the case of the Turkish airlines, the pilots were using the full ILS autopilot / autoland system… against regulations. The regulations state that to use the function, all 3 auto-pilots and related systems must be fully functioning and in full agreement. In the case of Turkish airlines, the altimeters and radar alt were knowingly faulty, and not in agreement, but they tried to use the system anyway. That was fully pilot error.
Your suggestions seem to be another example of “tax and spend” governance. I understand that the Obama administration is hiring … you might apply.
Statistically, the risks are de minimus, the costs exceptionally high, and the cost per life saved excessive. These funds would be far better spend re-tooling the routes and navigation systems.
Finally, since wreckage scenes inevitably are photographed showing the slightly charred, but intact, Barbie doll ™, perhaps we should build the planes out of these materials.
I never thought about the black boxes and their need to float. But you’re right, it’s all a cost thing. From a twisted perspective, why spend money on all of these technological upgrades when so few planes crash every year? I would do it, but that’s why they don’t.
Think about how much it cost to track one Apollo spacecraft at a time, and then about how many planes there are in the air at any given time.
The airlines foolishly already often price their tickets below cost.
Would any of these tracking devices have helped to save the plane from crashing? Probably not.
There are a lot of things we could do with technology. But the United States cannot even secure their border with Mexico.
Not to make light of this tragedy, but my mind wandered to the pilots that overshot the airport (actually, the entire island) in Hawaii. Instead of the tower voice over the radio, maybe they could have instead be awakened by Ms Garmin’s robot voice saying, “If possible, make a U turn…”
To All – It is technically possible for all aircraft to send a stream of data to a bank of computers which could compare the data received with the norms for the aircraft and location. A warning could be sent within seconds for the pilots. This cost would be paid by the air line. It could be cost effective to assist in maintainance as well as possibly prevent loss of life. But it is true that the bean counters will put a value on each of us and compare that to the cost of such a system. But just think – the NTSB would have a lot of data immediately instead of looking for the Black Box.
Have a wonderful day – Cliff
I’d like to echo a few things that Cliff mentioned above, but first permit me to thank everyone for your comments and your readership. I appreciate it.
GPS navigation is coming to the US and is currently being tested here. There is no doubt that GPS navigation will become the world standard. A few carriers, like Southwest Airlines, already use GPS to help planes make quicker landings that burn less fuel. Some European and Asian countries are moving more quickly toward establishing pricey satellite systems, but many other countries lag behind, including Brazil, where the ill-fated Air France took off on Sunday.
Many of today’s new commercial jets have GPS systems in them, but they don’t report their information to the ground, and they aren’t nearly well enough integrated into the plane’s instrumentation to achieve their full potential.
The FAA estimates that a GPS based navigation system implemented nationwide would save US domestic airlines at least 3.3 billion gallons of fuel a year or more than $10 billion annually based on today’s fuel prices. In other words Scott, GPS based systems would not just pay for themselves, they would eventually help the airlines turn a profit.
The new planes being designed and built have extensive internal computer monitoring systems which as Cliff suggested are a big plus in maintenance and already save the airlines millions, much more than they cost, by helping mechanics quickly identify where the problems lay. We see this in car maintenance now. Take a peek in your dealer’s repair bays to see the extensive computerized diagnostic equipment they now use. They use it because it saves money.
More and more planes today are being equipped with ACARS and ACARS type systems which steadily transmit specific data back to the airlines, and store even more for later download. It would cost very little for the airlines to transmit addition information to the ground, especially since it’s already being collected.
Retired airline pilot Vaughn Cordle, recently interviewed by the Associated Press said that over oceans, there are vast blind spots, especially in the middle of the Atlantic on US-European routes. There pilots usually have to resort to calling controllers with estimated positions every hour or so. He said that the call-ins can frustrate pilots, especially in and around South America, where radio and radar coverage is often patchy.
Cordle said, “There’s nothing worse than going through the painful exercise of trying to talk to someone and letting them know where you are. The South American region can be more dangerous because pilots are sometimes on their own.”
GPS proponents, like aviation expert Michael Boyd, who I quoted in the article, say satellite-based GPS air traffic systems provide another benefit that could have directly affected Flight 477, which disappeared into a band of towering thunderstorms. Such systems would collect information from all over the Earth and display weather maps and precise positioning in real-time on cockpit displays, giving pilots a tool to better determine how to navigate oncoming weather.
“The point is if we have GPS to monitor airplanes, could it save lives?” Boyd said. “The answer is clearly yes.”
In my opinion the time has already passed that we needed to install these systems, so let’s get to it. If that takes government regulation to force the issue, so be it. Clearly the industry isn’t doing enough for the flying public with regard to safety on their own. I think we need someone or some entity to hold their feet to the fire, and the time to do that is now.
And here’s a timely related article for you Ned http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168630/ American will test the use of GPS on a transatlantic flight from Miami to Paris this week. In addition to testing a new navigation system for the FAA, it’s also being tested as a fuel saving measure (money talks).
think Pinto here = it ultimately STILL cost Ford less money to pay out the claims related to the faulty fuel tanks prone to explosion than it would have cost to repair all the tanks in all the fleet.
Everything is a cost benefit analysis. Certified DUAL [cause you can't do anything with one in a commercial setting] GPS systems that can integrate into the existing flight management systems would likely cost $50-75k per airplane to implement. American owns north of 600 airplanes – the total is alot of zeros in an environment that
The NEXT issue is bandwidth – think about 250 airplanes in the evening over the north atlantic sending a position report ever 1, 2, 5 or however many minutes needs bandwidth to accept the reports – and likely ether HF radio [which would take forever due to the slow transmission rate] or a dedicated satellite to take bursts and recode them to the ground. Who pays for that in this economy.
Finally, changing the aircraft systems to allow the report to be transmitted.
At the end of the day its millions and millions of dollars – tens of millions and maybe a hundred million just for the airplane changes, then another hundred million for each satellite – and you need one to cover the eastern and western hemisphere. . . . all for one or two events every 25 years – that is all cost and no benefit. 228 lives simply are not worth $300 million of initial outlay and then millions in maintenance annually – sorry – but thems the facts.
There is a MUCH simpler process here. General Aviation has what is called an Emergency Locating Transmitter. It goes off when certain G limits are exceeded or it gets submersed in water. Those g-limits can be exceeded with a hard landing These units – with an INTERNAL GPS unit cost about $1200 each. Figure another $800 per airplane to install – with rechargeable batteries running off the airplane bus they’d need to be replaced every D check. I’d figure if you bought thousands of them, they’d cost $1000 to install. They have an internal GPS so they always know where they are. And they would work in the event of breakup or crash level g-forces – and INSTANTLY send a burst transmission to satellites ALREADY in orbit telling the SAR forces the tail number of the airplane, and exactly where it is. You match that up to an airline flight plan – and you know within seconds where the ELT was when it went off.
Now – EVERY SINGLE little airplane buzzing around the skies today has an ELT – they were mandated in the 1970′s. However – airliners were exempted. Go figure.
Help me. please….. ACARS has been around for years. The technology is VHF based and why the engine and flight data parameters have not been increased is beyond me .
This is not that hard.
I’m sure modern hightech planes already have a GPS System. Wouldn’t it be possible to change the programing, so that when there is failure event, the ACARS System simply appends the data to the ACARS Packet or simply sends a second packet if needed. (This wold prevent a significant waste of bandwidth, (though since it is not used 99.99% of the time, there would be some. Or it could be modified so that that packet is only added for certain event (i.e. Decompression) or if a treshhold is reached indicating cascade of events)*)
Also when there is a significant discrepancy in the output from different sensors (i.e. the Airspeed Sensors (pitot tube’s, etc) on Air France, or Radar Altimeter’s on the Turkish Airways). Could the Software be modified so that it is more obvious to the pilots and quickly provides a easy to understand side by side indicator.
In a crisis or stressful situation someone may not notice that 2 displays 2 feet apart don’t match. (I remember reading about a 747 where 1 of the artificial horizons failed, it was the one in front of the Pilot operating the aircraft. The one in front of the other pilot was ok and so was the one in the center of the instrument panel. )
Both of these changes would be primarily a change in the software. (Programers everyone are groaning at this comment, I know).
*I was on an A319 as we touched down , the wastewater system plopped up a warning indicating it needed service. (I was told that this always happens). This might be one of those case where a GPS packet is not needed.
Are the costs of search and rescue included in these cost benefit calculations? If the airlines had to pay for the S&R then they might have more incentive. What is the cost to deploy a nuclear submarine and several vessels to search the site? Since the government is picking up the tab, their cost benefit analysis should be incorporated into th equation as well.
Ground the Airbus?
Used in law, science and philosophy, a rule known as Occam’s Razor requires that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex, and/or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
We do not know if Air France Flight 447 was brought down by a lightning storm, a failure of speed sensors, rudder problems or pilot error. What we do know is that its plastic tail fin fell off and the plane fell almost seven miles into the ocean killing everyone aboard.
Article at Consortium News: http://consortiumnews.com/2009/062009a.html
Article at Global Research:http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14025