Have an airplane security idea

[mapuc]

This idea i got in the summer of 2009.

I was watching the news about this Air France plane that had disapeared outside Brazil. Meanwhile I was sending and recieving text on my cellphone-and that''s when I got this idea of a new kind of blackboxes

Today they are stationary on a plane. So if anything happen to the plane-crash or whatever-they just have to find it and find out what happen.

But what if the planes not just have this ordinary boxes, but also sending continuously to a bas on earth.

Let say that every information are send from the time the plane leave the gate and stop when it has reached the gate in the other end.

I know exactly how this system is going to be and how it should be working.

It's going to be like a person sendign continuously message to a reciever.

So in case of a disaster and they can't find the blackbox. They have every thing on a landbase disc(have to be three, just in case)


I can't be the only one with this idea- Not after the 2009 accident and the 1983 accident and other accident where they had hard time to find the blackboxes.

Markus

[Betonov]

Good idea, but since it's so easily to implement (not counting refiting all the airplanes) and needs no new technology I guess the idea has been thought of before so why it is not implemented yet ??

(my money would be on money)

[CCIP]

It's actually still rather tricky to get that amount of bandwidth and that degree of reliability on long-distance flights. There are areas in the world which aren't that well-covered by communication satellites.

Otherwise to a degree this already happens in any case - that's ACARS. That's what the Air France data came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addressing_and_Reporting_S ystem
Because of the bandwidth limitations that I mentioned, it's designed to send small amounts of key data.

However black boxes are still the only way to reliably store all voice + flight data, which is actually quite a substantial amount of information flowing every split-second. We're talking hundreds of different sensors and parameters. You can't reliably replace it with something wireless yet.

[Jimbuna]

Additional costs to the airlines I suspect.

There should already be plenty of satellites orbitting the earth to do this I suspect....but who would meet the costs?

[mapuc]

It's actually still rather tricky to get that amount of bandwidth and that degree of reliability on long-distance flights. There are areas in the world which aren't that well-covered by communication satellites.

Otherwise to a degree this already happens in any case - that's ACARS. That's what the Air France data came from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addressing_and_Reporting_S ystem
Because of the bandwidth limitations that I mentioned, it's designed to send small amounts of key data.

However black boxes are still the only way to reliably store all voice + flight data, which is actually quite a substantial amount of information flowing every split-second. We're talking hundreds of different sensors and parameters. You can't reliably replace it with something wireless yet.


The same thing that's "puting" on the tape, is also send to the landbase.

I was thinking of using the cellphone network and satellite.

I do know it's lots of information that's being collected every minute.
and that have to be solved so the information can be send without any disruption.

Markus

[MH]

That's telemetry for airplanes.
Is that really needed?
I think making the boxes as smart as possible is good solution.

[Randomizer]

This was discussed extensively over at the Airliners.net forums in the wake of the Air France 447 crash. The general consensus was cost, bandwidth issues, information management and general utility of the idea made it entirely impractical.

The key point is that both data recorders were recovered from the AF accident, a feat that has been likened to finding a match book in the Grand Canyon at night using only a flashlight.

Streaming telemetry might be technically possible but is certainly not worth the added infrastructure costs and overcoming other technical issues. How many passengers are willing to pay higher airfares to fund a system that pays off only if they die.

[yubba]

Verrrrry interrrrresssttiiinngg, you would have to take in too account there is some 15,000 commercial aircraft alone over the United States at one given time, though it is a novel idea the cost would be a facture, with installing transmitters and a mainframe to collect all that data, though something like that, collecting data from sensor onboard might prevent some disasters, but what it all comes down to is what you are willing to pay for, now that there is some 30,000 shoulder held anti aircraft missiles unaccounted for, from the Lybia thingy, I think they got bigger fish to fry.

[CCIP]

How many passengers are willing to pay higher airfares to fund a system that pays off only if they die.

Yep, that's the bottom line.

I suspect that there will never be a full-on wireless replacement for the black box, but the ACARS may gradually get more sophisticated to assist in these sorts of situations. In the end, black boxes have proven themselves reliable - as evidenced with the Air France flight, nowadays they're more likely to be found than not.

[mapuc]

I admit that there are thing I wasn't thinking of when I got my idea.

I say the same as

MH does
I think making the boxes as smart as possible is good solution

That would be the way.

Markus

[yubba]

Don't beat yourself up, it was a novel idea.

[TLAM Strike]

What if the black box detects the aircraft descending say below 500 feet at over 300 knots or some such about to be fatal telemetry, it jettisons the black box with a parachute to have it land in the water with a little raft. :hmmm:

[yubba]

or with a stronger signal with more bouyance, but what of flight 800 the so called witnesses of a missle, the missile frigate, the radar data, well I think I got enough on my plate it's interferring with my stories.