Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by masklinn 4481 days ago
> He's talking about the "evidence-collecting computers in the cockpit" that send the data to the black box.

No, he's saying that collecting the black box is a pain in the ass so there should be a permanent data link to ground.

Plus his whole premise is wrong, as there already is one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Address... there just isn't enough bandwidth to send much more than basic systems failure data. Certainly not enough to send the kind of information stored in the black box, and not until the final moments of the plane either.
1 comments
phaemon 4481 days ago
No, he's talking about "evidence-collecting computers in the cockpit". I know that because that's a quote from the article. You can tell that because I used "quote marks".

He also says that there should be a permanent data link to ground. At which point you say (paraphrased), "there is one, except there isn't".

link
masklinn 4481 days ago
> No, he's talking about "evidence-collecting computers in the cockpit"

No, he's mentioning them. He's not talking about them. You could know by having read the article and noted he says nothing about them outside of the subtitle.

> At which point you say (paraphrased), "there is one, except there isn't".

The actual paraphrase would be "there is one except physics". There is a link, it can't magick reliability which does not exist when the computer is a flaming ball of debris in a storm. His proposition boils down to "magick up a reliable connection and send a subset of the blackbox data over it" (note the part where changing anything to "evidence-collecting computers" figures nowhere in the proposal?)

link
phaemon 4481 days ago
> No, he's mentioning them. He's not talking about them.

Yes he is, in the part I quoted. That's the part I'm talking about, which is why it's the part I quoted. Learn what the word "context" means. It's the part that the comment I was replying to quoted. Try and keep up.

> The actual paraphrase would be "there is one except physics".

Use the existing wifi connection to send additional information that at least would give you the location of the plane to the nearest kilometer. There are no laws of physics that prevent this.

link
masklinn 4480 days ago
> Yes he is, in the part I quoted.

No, he's not talking about these systems.

> Use the existing wifi connection

The fuck are you talking about, planes don't have wifi connections. Do you think they've got a a wifi antenna outside connecting to an AP on land?

> to send additional information that at least would give you the location of the plane to the nearest kilometer.

That already trivially fits in the ACARS, and is completely useless since it's available from radars in the first place, until radar and data links become unavailable.

link
phaemon 4480 days ago
> The fuck are you talking about, planes don't have wifi connections.

Yes they do. I'm talking about the connection that is used to provide wifi to passengers on the plane. It's a satellite connection.

If the location is available, how did they lose the plane?

link