Enough is Enough - We Can Prevent the Next Airline Disaster

Enough is Enough - We Can Prevent the Next Airline Disaster

Who do we know in the airline industry? execs, pilots?

We in the tech industry are reaching out to them now to help prevent more needless crashes such as the germanwings purposeful disaster. we CAN prevent these tragedies:

1. We must put cameras in the planes and send the feeds live to ground stations in encrypted formats for immediate computer analysis. How can we STILL be using 1950s cockpit voice recorders (CVR) and black boxes?? those are ANCIENT. we can beam down all flight data, video and sound in realtime and store on secure servers.

Some pilots object - to assuage them we can erase the video a day after the plane lands safely so they don't have to worry about casual cockpit convos being recorded forever. Lynn Spencer, a seasoned airline pilot and flight instructor, calls for cameras in the cockpit as do others.

Others say this will cost too much - no, it will not. compression and other technology make this a small expense compared with the benefits. Lower satellite transmission costs also help in addition to new services that use cell towers where available.

We can deploy pattern recog on the flight data, video and audio to alert towers to unusual behavior and patterns - these systems can easily detect the kind of anomalies exhibited by the malaysian air flight way before they ran out of fuel over the ocean.

2. We can deploy auto pilots that WILL NOT LET THE PILOT CRASH THE PLANE. it is unacceptable in 2015 to have a pilot be able to ram a plane full of people right into a mountain -- we have the tech NOW to prevent this.

let us not let ONE more tragedy like this happen. we must work with the airline industry to help them get this tech into planes. IT IS NOT HARD.

Let us know if you know anyone in the airline industry so we can form a partnership to prevent needless deaths.

Ajith Kumar

Telecom Automation & Observability

9y

Fully agree Jack. I have been studying various reasons for the aircraft disasters since MH 370 disappearance. Surprisingly most of air disasters can be avoided with today's technology. Passion for making a difference is what's required and Google kind of companies should lead the way. Here are some of the common reasons for airline disasters:- 1) Faulty readings ( Airspeed and Altitude) due to Pitot tube getting blocked for various reasons ( Due to icy weather conditions etc)- Pilots can get confused and end up in a disaster 2) Undetected Metal fatigue due to Poor Maintenance - This is mainly due to Human errors - This can easily be avoided 3) Overworked crew 4) Instrument Landing System Failures 5) Pilot suicide 6) Airlines hiring Pilot without proper background checks - ie goofed up training license etc 7) Hijacking, Acts of terrorism & Missiles 8) Engine failures mainly due Metal fatigue 9) Birds ingested in the engine - Bird collision 10) Faulty de-icing mechanism or ineffective de-icing liquids can result in ice accumulation on the wings , which can prevent proper airflow and lift of the plane- This can lead to a crash. 11) Crash due to extreme Air Turbulence - For eg: Smaller Aircraft has to maintain a requisite distance from a bigger aircraft to avoid getting trapped in the turbulence generated by a bigger aircraft 12) Mid Air collision 13) Inexperienced ATC 14) Through check of runway after every take off to avoid any unwarranted material to be present to the runway. (For eg: Concorde crash in 2000) 15) Crash due to Multiple hydraulic control failure 16) Exceptional bad weather conditions 17) Poor Visibility due to fog 18) Aircraft Compass has to be Manually aligned near poles (Not sure if this is automated now) 19) Fire due to Fuel Tank Leakage 20) Lack of Proper Piolet training 21) Technical flaws in maintenance - Eg: Improper revetting while replacing mechanical parts. 22) Lack of predictive tools for replacing Mechanical parts at the right time

Like
Reply
Erik Klavon

ATP, CFII, MEI, AIGI

9y

The complexity inherent in technology is a double edged sword. Greater levels of automation and complexity may not yield increased safety, especially when the problem they target is incredibly rare. See for example Air France 447, which is often cited in discussions of the erosion of basic airmanship due to increasing levels of automation in aircraft. Watch "Children of the Magenta" for a discussion of automation dependency. See Qantas QF32 for an example of how the most advanced aircraft technology can fail in ways that require novel human response outside the bounds of what the aircraft designers dreamed of.

Like
Reply
Jillian Friesen

Lockheed Martin | Global Business Development & Strategy Transformation

9y

This is a great idea and project. However, there are major security concerns and as Paul pointed out, you can't have two systems trying to override each other. What happens communication and automated piloting systems are hacked or a malicious actor made it appear as if a plane was flying at a different FL than what it actually was... The autopilot would think the plane was in steep descent even though it was actually holding level. Please keep us posted. Thank you.

Like
Reply
Paul Wouters

Sr Security Architect at Aiven

9y

you can't have humans overriding computers and computers overriding humans at the same time.

Paul Vixie

Restoring Human Security to Pre-Internet Levels

9y

show me a control system that won't let a pilot crash into a mountain, and i'll show you 12 different ways it can be abused by criminals and terrorists, and another half dozen ways it'll mis-identify what a pilot is trying to do and CAUSE the crash you installed it to prevent. ...... this article is extraordinarily naive about technology.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics