There are only a thousand reasons aircraft operators might want to know where their planes are and if there are any issues. I’m sure that the gps position and black box data could be streamed over radio and/or satellite.
> Even without finding the plane, a number of lessons have been drawn from the disappearance of MH370. Many of the responses to the disappearance centered on the fact that in the 21st century, commercial airliners should not just disappear. In the interest of knowing where every plane is at all times, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) began requiring that all airliners manufactured after the 1st of January 2021 include autonomous tracking devices that broadcast their location once per minute. To give greater coverage of airplanes manufactured before that date, Inmarsat (which supplies satellite relays to nearly all commercial airliners) changed the frequency of its handshakes from once per hour to once every 15 minutes. The European Aviation Safety Agency began requiring that the “pingers” on aircraft flight recorders last at least 90 days, rather than 30. ICAO also amended its guidelines to require that airliner designs approved after 2020 include cockpit voice recorders that record 25 hours of conversations (instead of the current standard of two), and that flight data recorders either stream data to a location on the ground or be designed to float to the surface after a crash. (Like all ICAO regulations, these only come into force if adopted by the member states, which may take some time.)
I think now, after another documented murder-suicide, there's also been a change in regulations requiring at least 2 people to be in the cockpit at all times. Other commenters point to additional changes
There isn't much that can be done to "prevent" incidents like this.
This would help prevent a nefarious pilot from taking the plane down.
Arguably, many of the things suggested might potentially have prevented Zaharie from carrying out his plan, assuming the scenario described in the article is true, depending on his motives: if the plane could have been intercepted in mid-flight, if he would have been found out almost instantly, his family wouldn't have been able to collect life insurance; if his motive had been less financial for his family and more about the intellectual challenge of getting away with the perfect crime, this too would have made his task more difficult.
But that aside, when we say "prevent the next MH370", it's ambiguous: we could interpret that as "prevent a pilot from deliberately crashing their plane and killing everyone on board", or we could interpret it as "prevent a plane from vanishing", which has been devastating to families in its own unique and horrible way. In other words: locating the wreckage faster - or at all! - has value too, and shouldn't be dismissed.
If real-time flight tracking data is frequently and continuously monitored 24/7 like in NoC, it probably can prevent the disaster like MH370 from happening again.
The latter real-time virtual blackbox proposal if accepted can be even more pro-active in preventing future incidents, and it can be easily integrated and embedded with the real-time location tracking albeit with extra cost to the airline operators.
Apparently the latter proposal according to ICAO was rejected due to the complaints from the pilot's union that cited privacy concerns. It seems that pilot's privacy is of higher pririty than the passengers' safety. You can have all your privacy in your house but when you are piloting aeroplane with many people life is your responsibility, pilot's privacy probably the least of your concern.
Also, real-time streaming of GPS position for the thousands of flights in the air at any given time is not a trivial problem (but technology is improving and ICAO is pushing for such solution[3]).
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/08/us/mh370-fifth-anniversary-ma...
[1] https://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2014-04-10/malaysia-airli...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-pr...
[3] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184544/un-flight-trackin...
I imagine there are optimization that could be done to reduce the cost further. Big customers with constant rate usage can probably negotiate a more favorable price etc.
I suspect that there are some extra costs making it "flight ready" and all that stuff, but the fact of the matter is that GPS chips are cheaper and more plentiful than ever, we have Starlink coverage in Antarctica now, and they're send more and more satellites up every week now. There are costs in securing it and then receiving the data and such but it all seems really inepensive compared to the planes, the insurance payouts and the search and recovery efforts.
But technology in aviation moves (generally for very good reasons!) at a different pace than in many other industries, and in this case it unfortunately meant having an operational satellite communications system on board (used for engine performance data telemetry transmitted to the manufacturer), but not having it wired up to ADS-C, an existing standard which allows automated position reporting over that same connection.
Inmarsat has modified their offerings [1] since MH370: One free ADS-C position report every 15 minutes for planes that do support it (implying that transmission cost is a concern for not activating the option unless required for air traffic control via FANS), and the ability to piggy-back a position report onto a "handshake/ping" for those that don't, which would presumably have included MH370.
For aircraft not equipped with any Satcom, some satellite constellations (including e.g. the latest generation of Iridium satellites) include payloads that allow direct tracking of ADS-B signals as well.
[1] https://www.icao.int/Meetings/GTM/Documents/Inmarsat.pdf
Admittedly a lot of this was before our new era of satellite constellations, but surely the future should now be "per second updates and streaming audio/video via satellite"?
Also there's a whole lot of air traffic.
Modern satellites can shift terabits per second. They can handle a lat/long pair every couple of minutes sent by every oceanic flight in the air comfortably (even when only using the L-band, which needs much smaller and simpler antennas than those used for in-flight Wi-Fi).
"Aviation authorities swiftly implemented new recommendations from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency that required two authorised personnel in the cockpit at all times, but by 2017, Germanwings and other German airlines had dropped the rule."
Plus let's not forget AF447 where a mistake by one pilot (involuntarily) stalling the plane wasn't caught by the other pilots until too late.. To be fair this was during an emergency caused by pitot tube 'failure', so there were lots of things to process.
There has been a German and Chinese flight since with 100+ fatalities where this happened. Given how few crashes there are on commercial flights its one of the biggest risk factors today.
I would have said the 787 lithium battery risk was more concerning personally. Or the 737 Max problem.
In terms of fatalities and hull losses, pilot suicide is a much larger risk than the 737 Max. It’s made worse by outdated FAA rules that would have pilots grounded for seeking treatment.
If you consider that the number of 737 Maxes in service was not that large, it's pretty clear that MCAS was more dangerous than pilot suicide.
If you compare it on an hourly basis it is still safer but not nearly as safe as people would like to think. Especially if you add in small commercial/charter planes
Because of more active drivers and low occupancy cars, I would think from first principles for a constant rate of suicide ideation in the population the risk of death by driver suicide as a side effect is high, and must actually be higher than pilot suicide risk. You are not in the car but the accident affects you. You are driving more often that it's more statistically likely to drive near another driver who deliberately drives dangerously, than the risk of a pilot ending it all.
But if we stop obsessing with the risk of pilot suicide and were just talking overall risk, passenger/miles is the best measure there is. Trains might win.
So fall into a depression and need to talk to a therapist and get a pill to help you out while you get back on your emotional feet? Well now your airline is going to ground you for however long they feel like. They are incentivized to be as careful as possible about known issues.
This means pilots feel like they have to bottle up things like anxiety or depression or suicidal thoughts, which of course means they might not get the help they need.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence indicating that pilots will seek treatment under false names, or, worse, self medicate with alcohol for what would otherwise be treatable and minor conditions.
When I got my medical I was coached by my instructor to volunteer absolutely no information that wasn’t asked. It was strongly hinted that I should not recall ever having been treated or diagnosed with any mental condition.
Sometimes they retire the flight number. Then it can't happen again. Looks like that's the case here [1]
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/13/289800435...
Find My: Boeing 777
2) name the AirTag “Boeing 777”
3) you have your personal Boeing in Find My to show off