From AF447 and Adam Air 574 (and others) we have learned it can be many days before the wreckage of an aircraft traveling in an oceanic environment is localized. This uncertainty significantly increases the cost of recovery efforts and practically guarantees that there can be no survivors.
- Why do we not require commercial aircraft traveling in an oceanic environment to have a floating ELT capable of detaching from the aircraft and floating to the surface? We have a capable SAR network. Why not have a means of employing it?
- The expense and problems of oceanic data recovery indicate that we need to store data in a less concentrated fashion than we presently do. What is to prevent a black box from outputting its data (as it is recorded) to a secondary/tertiary/etc recording device mounted elsewhere on the aircraft. Then all the eggs aren't in one basket. If you mounted one of the storage devices on the floating ELT discussed above, the cost of oceanic crash investigations could be reduced by orders of magnitude with just a little good fortune.
- Secondary data storage devices would be shock hardened but not armor plated. They would probably be located in the vertical stabilizer and wing tip vicinity. From previous discussions, it appears that the satellite route to data recovery isn't ready for prime time.
If AF447 teaches us any easy lessons, they are that our existing systems for crash location and crash data recovery need improvement.