At times like this, I'm reminded of the Mars Curiosity's tech specs which are something like 200MHz, 256MB of RAM, 2GB hd,and 2MP camera and all the posts about how my iPhone is so much better. Well it was good enough to get to Mars and a hell of a lot more reliable.

Some of the research rovers we built before Sojourner had 8-bit processors with 2k EEPROM and 256 bytes of RAM. Back then there were people who thought we were crazy for thinking that some day we would be able to fly with the same 8MB of RAM that was in our MacII development machines.

At times like this, I'm reminded of the nuclear power plants of the world and their automation based on punched cards.

When speaking about systems, which need maximal reliability and are strictly controlled by authorities (air planes, nuclear power plants, medical treatment devices, space related stuff), updating existing and once approved systems is so painful, that you often do all you can to avoid it. That's a sad state of affairs.

> It may be stuck in the 60's but HF radios work

Really? When you have to worry about things like "Squelch" in order to deal with voltage supply ground noise? You are on thin ground.

The real problem with modern technology is that the pilot can't rely on it. Sure, a digital radio is $1,000 (or less). However, the digital radio that is FAA certified will be expensive and nobody is going to develop it because the FAA won't require it because all the pilots will bitch that it is too expensive.

Squelch adjusts the noise floor, and in modern radios can be automagical. Also there is nought wrong with digital over HF, as other posts will attest.

There are lots of solutions.

But nobody is going to front the money to get it FAA certified so that it can be a required solution given that the most you will sell is 1,000 a year.

This is the real reason why air technology is so far behind. There is no profit in it.

I think there is more pessimism than required here. We need not start with ATC directly sending instructions to the iPad thats controlling the aircraft (although something similar happens in UAVs). We can start with it displaying the required instructions along with the HF radio. Also the final judgement of obeying an instruction is with the pilot and he will responsible for the results.

In the era of having artificial hearts and pacemakers that are helping better lives, I don't think its as hard to even build sound and safe automated flying systems.

That's all fine, but the points he makes remain very valid, GPS tracking and weather info being the most valid. No-one knows why the plane went down, but arguing that technology advances can't make planes safer isn't true by the looks of the article. The fact that the security aspects of computer systems to help pilots is hard does not mean it can't be attempted successfully, the points made about drones ring true on this.

In the US, most planes do have GPS, and it will be a requirement by 2020.

For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillanc...

The MH370 777 was fitted with ADS-B, which is how the various internet based tracking services managed to track it. Unfortunately, it was so far away from the nearest receiver site that the line-of-sight needed for microwave transmissions wasn't possible below 30,000 feet. If the plane made an emergency descent, it would've vanished from tracking very quickly though perhaps not as quickly as it did vanish. AF477 sent ACARS messages over its satellite communication link, as I recall, these are not sent as frequently as ADS-B messages but would be enough to locate the aircraft very approximately. The problem with any technical solution is it may not continue to function for the whole flight, which is why ELTs exist, but they're not indestructible or guaranteed to be in a position to transmit after a crash. There is only so much you can do with electrons, when you're facing the prospect of a large metal object falling 35,000 feet into salt water.

ADSB is a whole new can of worms [0] just waiting for people to exploit…

[0]: http://dangerousprototypes.com/2013/02/28/defcon-20-renderma...

Yes the potential for abuse in any of these sensitive systems is why I think it's understandable we're moving slowly. We don't want to fuck up. The Hacker Way of “Move fast and break things” isn't always realistic.

actually, HF radios with digital, encrypted & authenticated communication work GPS works, too internet safe for business fliers but not the pilot? please. it doesnt mean the whole plane relies on internet.

those 3 should probably be added to current planes, regardless.

i'm not sure why you think there is a single system with a "CPU" in a plane either. there's multiple independent systems - some electronic, some analog.

all this not much to do with visualization or python, in fact... and software glitches in planes do happen, by the way.

I think you're missing point. For a system to be allowed on a passenger plane, it must be certified.

That means that it has to go through actual real QA (something foreign to modern Software science.)

You want to put in a glonass receiver? sure, but it has to operate independently of the GPS system, and it cannot replace any other navigation system unless the FAA allow it.

the point is each system must be robust (i mean really robust) and able to work past the extremes independently.

True. You can't argue about the lack of GPS trackers, though. Every shipping container has one nowadays.

Reading GPS is cheap and easy. Sending information back is not.

Those shipping container trackers use GSM to call home. They're cell phones. What happens when that container is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

That's an interesting question. Mini "cell tower" on the ship with satellite link?

The original topic here was "why don't planes have GPS trackers on them and constantly report in, if trackers are so cheap and every car/truck/container/phone on the planet can have one?"

How does a plane get data back to the ground when it's 7 miles up and 1000 miles from shore? You have to have a satellite or long-range VHF link.

or you could just use radar, which only requires your own radar to work....

More than the 'dated' technology they rely on, it's the overall system and protocols that have been crafted and polished. New tech often result in unknown regressions.

obviously anything that is stuck in the 60's works - and well, or it wouldn't still be used.

author's point is that we could do better using today's technology.