Dick, others offering thoughts on this kind of solution;
"Deploying the recorders" is a variation on the solution (squirting out selected parameters as per the Aeromechanical model), which also relies upon the triggering of a "mission threatening event". How is that "event" or series of events defined? How would false alarms be prevented while still sending out the last critical information or deploying the recorders before catastrophic failure of the platform or loss of all electrics?
By the way, I don't think any such system (deploying recorders) exists but that is beside the point.
We are focussing far too narrowly on a solution that is trying to solve the frustration over the loss of AF447's recorders. What other problems does such a solution resolve? At what expense in terms of money and dedication of resources; with which other flight safety projects or solutions must this concept compete?
It isn't applicable to the majority of aircraft losses where either the recorders survived or were later recovered from a body of water. It has been mentioned a number of times on all AF447-related threads: the number of accidents which remain an enigma and for which we have no clue as to what happened are rare.
Real-time transmission by satellite may become a doable and accepted technology. I have already discussed the security issues which stand in the way of such an approach. They are only partially technical in nature. At some point the will to "do the right thing" will be overtaken by financial considerations and the true reason for the existence of flight data will become moot. Like cockpit video recorders, it can be done but thus far no one has ever come up with a solid process by which such data is not appropriated by the likes of CNN, Fox "News" or You-tube or in the case of flight data, lawyers.
PJ2