|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 25, 2014 22:43:02 GMT
Well "damage" is much more satisfying and also more logical for the average people. But damage is obvious and fixing the equipment would just cost money. Production isn't delayed by much. But if they don't get any product for no apparent reason, this is time consuming and causes a major delay. I wonder if we ever find out who came up with this little critter. Either a large community of "enthusiasts" or a nation state paying a lot of money for the best hackers they could find and then make sure nobody feels the need to talk. I highly doubt that this was made in the USA since those projects all came out sooner or later by "whistle-blowers". Russia and China are a good bet, they are good at keeping such kinds of secrets and they certainly have the capability. Then there is India which is famous for computer experts. But I would bet my money on a country which isn't known to have computer experts and isn't that big. I would bet on Israel, they already had spoiled the nuclear program of another country after all. when thinking of Israel's computer savvy, consider: they buy fighter plane airfarmes from us. then they install their OWN avionics, because they like their tech better than ours. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 26, 2014 7:11:26 GMT
More liable they put their own instrumentation in to make sure it isnt phoning home to Microsoft every 15 seconds asking for updates?....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 26, 2014 14:24:41 GMT
More liable they put their own instrumentation in to make sure it isnt phoning home to Microsoft every 15 seconds asking for updates?.... doesn't that count as liking it better? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 26, 2014 14:26:54 GMT
More liable they put their own instrumentation in to make sure it isnt phoning home to Microsoft every 15 seconds asking for updates?.... doesn't that count as liking it better? I was being sarcastic..... Heck, foreign flight companies complained about Rolls Royce being able to do in-flight checks on the engine.... that is until one went missing, and Rolls Royce said if they had asked them they could have told them exactly where the plane was last time they looked. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 26, 2014 14:45:34 GMT
doesn't that count as liking it better? I was being sarcastic..... Heck, foreign flight companies complained about Rolls Royce being able to do in-flight checks on the engine.... that is until one went missing, and Rolls Royce said if they had asked them they could have told them exactly where the plane was last time they looked. Rolls Royce have always been a little bit like that. that's why it used to be said that if you could afford the down payment, the cost of ownership of driving a rolls royce for its total lifespan was less than the cost of ownership for driving "economy" cars for the same number of years. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Oct 27, 2014 9:14:13 GMT
Well, they often spent millions just to find the black boxes to figure out what happened and the navigational data where the plane went.
Now they consider online telemetry so when the plane had crashed, they know exactly where it had crashed and where the wreck is located as well as what had happened before looking at the derbies to find the black boxes.
This is much better than the discussion how long the batteries of the under water pinger should last.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 27, 2014 10:30:04 GMT
Well, they often spent millions just to find the black boxes to figure out what happened and the navigational data where the plane went. Now they consider online telemetry so when the plane had crashed, they know exactly where it had crashed and where the wreck is located as well as what had happened before looking at the derbies to find the black boxes. This is much better than the discussion how long the batteries of the under water pinger should last. The hard part to take in is that the technology to track all flights in real time already exists. A British form can already do this.... Its just it has never been asked to supply that data. Part of the technology is the thing with the engines... The other part is basic trigonometry on where its sending messages from. And of course a small transponder working all the time stuck to the top of the aircraft doing a sat-nav link to satellite would help.... Cost of roll-out of this technology and monitoring is expected to be less than the cost of a single seat on every flight.... and thats the budget seats, not first class. Why is this so hard?... I dont understand, Air TRaffic Contol already monitors everything in its own air-space, why cant it match what it sees with what the aircraft is supposed to be doing?... why dont we have a Global air traffic control system monitoring all craft as they "Onward" between each patch of individual control?.. We can already do this, why are we not?... I believe these questions are being taken seriously. Forklifting seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Oct 27, 2014 11:09:26 GMT
Well, they often spent millions just to find the black boxes to figure out what happened and the navigational data where the plane went. Now they consider online telemetry so when the plane had crashed, they know exactly where it had crashed and where the wreck is located as well as what had happened before looking at the derbies to find the black boxes. This is much better than the discussion how long the batteries of the under water pinger should last. The hard part to take in is that the technology to track all flights in real time already exists. A British form can already do this.... Its just it has never been asked to supply that data. Part of the technology is the thing with the engines... The other part is basic trigonometry on where its sending messages from. And of course a small transponder working all the time stuck to the top of the aircraft doing a sat-nav link to satellite would help.... Cost of roll-out of this technology and monitoring is expected to be less than the cost of a single seat on every flight.... and thats the budget seats, not first class. Why is this so hard?... I dont understand, Air TRaffic Contol already monitors everything in its own air-space, why cant it match what it sees with what the aircraft is supposed to be doing?... why dont we have a Global air traffic control system monitoring all craft as they "Onward" between each patch of individual control?.. We can already do this, why are we not?... I believe these questions are being taken seriously. Forklifting seriously. Well, the "hard part" is forcing the airline to spend money. The usual problem is if something is discovered which might cause harm. Then the airline has to decide between "Spending money for sure and maybe saving life" and "Spending no money because it shouldn't matter anyway!" And what makes the decision real hard is that crash prevention costs real money while an actual crash is for free or can even gain money from the insurance. The technology for online trigonometry is there. Passengers can surf the internet so the capability for online telemetry is just a matter of connecting the black box or an additional blackbox system to the internet. While it might fail to report the last minute or so, the beginning of the accident should be online. In fact all modern airplanes have a much more detailed data storage system on board, usually a CF memory card used for debugging by the manufacturer. When the airplane is able to land, air crash investigators can pull the CF memory for much more detailed data than what the black box stores. The problem is the compression and write cycles of the debugging CF memory. When the system becomes destroyed, many minutes of data are still in the RAM and is lost. The black boxes store their data immediately and don't have that much memory to spare so they can only store the most important data but in real time. You are right, why wouldn't the airplanes communicate with each other? Actually, they do. TCAS is already mandatory for western airlines and even all other airlines have this system mostly in place. The disaster in Überlingen shouldn't have happened. The problem was that the air traffic controller called the Russian Pilot and told him to descent when the controller noticed the potential collision. The TCAS said "pull up" at the same time and while the rules demand to do what TCAS says, the Russian doctrine was the supervisor is always right so they did what the controller said. The RADAR system of Zürich was capable to detect the potential collision and warn the controller, but it was in maintenance mode and this feature wasn't available. Also the telephone system was also in maintenance mode and completely failed so the controller was busy with the telephone and didn't monitor the radar screen for a while. New rules take care of such a situation but the airline industries is working on a much better system. They now want to do what is mandatory for large ships on the ocean. Those have to upload their GPS position to a website everybody can access. Odyssey Marine Exploration has a great problem with this. Everybody can see where they are and if they stop to examine a ship wreck. So someone could claim the wreck before they are done with their examination. Since there is no rule how accurate the GPS data has to be, they fake the data so when they stop, their computer simulates that they are browsing the area slowly as if they just randomly scan the ocean floor. This system was invented to prevent fatal supertanker crashes. Anything big enough to sink a supertanker in a crash has to have this system on board. And now they want to do this for airplanes as well. They do receive digital data like a car GPS navigation system about closed down areas already. For example the US weather service can mark areas of storms. They just define rectangles so only a few coordinates are required and airplanes may not enter those boxes. Now the system should become enhanced and receive the coordinates and altitude of all other airplanes. And even if an airplane fails to report its position, there's always TCAS as backup. |
|
