Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

Old 13th Jan 2015, 04:19
  #1901 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 75
Posts: 0
Thumbs up CVR RECORDINGS

So cool it with all the conspiracy theories for a while. The information will be released in due time
AMEN AMEN AMEN
SAMPUBLIUS is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 04:31
  #1902 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
@NSEU

Good luck getting the black boxes to float!

Armour plated for crash resistance, for their size, they would have to be the heaviest boxes on the aircraft. You'd have to find a crash resistant/fire proof floatation device of considerable size.
Indeed... not to mention this little comment right at the end of the article.

"It would also help to indicate the exact point of impact at the time of the crash and to find the wreckage."

Airbus to get ejectable black boxes
JSmithDTV is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 07:09
  #1903 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 77
Posts: 1,330
formationdriver

There have been many interjections in threads in this forum dedicated to the A v B aspects, along with those addressing the never-ending theories about a supposed recorder substitution. None have ever been proven with a degree of conviction that "sticks".

This particular thread is not about Airbus versus Boeing, its about a mishap to a flight that involved an A320 aircraft. A relationship between the events associated with the flight and all the junk that has been portrayed in the past is a tenuous call.

Let's just deal with the facts around this particular incident, and let the facts that emerge speak for themselves, and never forget that its people like you and me who are always potential witnesses and victims to things that go wrong in aviation.
mm43 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 07:58
  #1904 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 743

Good luck getting the black boxes to float!*

Armour plated for crash resistance, for their size, they would have to be the heaviest boxes on the aircraft. You'd have to find a crash resistant/fire proof floatation device of considerable size.
Would the duplicates need to be 'duplicates' as such?

That is would they need to be fully armored (and so heavy) if they were
for ejecting over water surrounded by a floatation device... maybe a compromise
could be made... ?
HarryMann is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 08:24
  #1905 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 0
you don't need much of a lift-bag to float a surprisingly heavy object.

you only have to displace the same weight of water, and at 1Kg's/Litre a 20l bag will 'lift' 20Kg's (think something the same volume as a jerry can)
Scuffers is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 09:25
  #1906 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Barsarnas Chief has apparently clarified that they have found the wings and an engine, but not the main body of the wreckage. The number of "clarifications" gets quite confusing.
Blake777 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 09:27
  #1907 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: KSAN
Age: 58
Posts: 26
Crash Position Indicator

The appropriate ejectable/floatable/ELT/CVR/FDR technology is over 50 years old and well known in the military airlift and offshore rotary-wing communities, just Google "Crash Position Indicator".
Sawbones62 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 10:03
  #1908 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,387
@NSEU

Good luck getting the black boxes to float!

Armour plated for crash resistance, for their size, they would have to be the heaviest boxes on the aircraft. You'd have to find a crash resistant/fire proof floatation device of considerable size.
One type is made from fibreglass filled with foam...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj-aOVUQMEE
cwatters is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 10:14
  #1909 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: N5552.0W00419.0ish
Posts: 88
Originally Posted by airbus DR article
'The change is generally quick,' the spokesman added on Monday
I can't see how such a thing can be quick, unless it already exists, awaiting approval. I can only imagine that the 'change' in question is to the specification. The engineering/R&D folks have no doubt got a fair amount of the spec in mind, and that may be the basis for any change. However, if Airbus & Boeing have differing, but equally valid views on what it should be, then already you have a delay. Not so quick, then.
Implementing these ideas would be a whole new set of considerations for the product and design folks. Recorders as they stand now are due to a process of evolution, still ongoing, rather than just a simple 'lets do this'. As is their placement. Where will it be fitted? How will it be ejected? when would it be ejected? Being just some very simple questions

Originally Posted by Harry
Would the duplicates need to be 'duplicates' as such?

That is would they need to be fully armored (and so heavy) if they were
for ejecting over water surrounded by a floatation device... maybe a compromise
could be made... ?
Duplicates? Not necessarily. The main considerations are survivability and recovery, surely. So, it needs to be quickly obvious that it has been detached from the aircraft, and start transmitting. There also would need to be a well established response in this event. Not hoping for the best, surprised by the worst, which has been alluded to in several comments both here and the MH370 discussions.
In the event that the aircraft ends up in the sea, then the capsule should float. But would the 'capsule' end up in the sea, too? Defining the incident as being only over sea, or only over land will surely ignore a vast amount of other scenarios, such as coastal areas. So, It would need to be as survivable as the main unit. If the ejectable capsule is unable to survive an unexpected impact with rocks for instance, then the whole exercise becomes futile.

Transmission of data then, becomes an option.
But do you need to transmit it all? Or just snap shots? Maybe just critical phases, such as take off and landing, passing transition alt/level, anytime RadAlt is triggered, anytime GPWS/TCAS are triggered being just a few events when it would be needed.
Lancelot de boyles is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 10:25
  #1910 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 89
Why do you all think the floating beacon/CVR/FDR would be a literal duplicate of the one currently in the airplane with a huge float tied to it
You need duplicate DATA, not a duplicate box. The memory to store a copy of the data would fit within the form factor of current production floating EPIRBS.
island_airphoto is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 10:27
  #1911 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,295
This is apparently a photo of the CVR which has just been retrieved.



Source: CNA (6.57 PM Singapore time)
training wheels is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 10:29
  #1912 (permalink)  
TWT
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: troposphere
Posts: 715
Good on the Indonesians for finding the boxes.They have achieved success with a lot of hard work.
TWT is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 11:12
  #1913 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by Sawbones62 View Post
The appropriate ejectable/floatable/ELT/CVR/FDR technology is over 50 years old and well known in the military airlift and offshore rotary-wing communities, just Google "Crash Position Indicator".
They have been around for years on C-5 and C-141. See http://c141heaven.info/dotcom/traini...n_6_20_elt.pdf just the look of the document will tell you how old it is
Ian W is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 11:48
  #1914 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 211
It's clear that (at least within this forum) the consensus is that the way we handle aircraft flight data needs changing.

Ejectable data capsules are workable concept, Island_airphoto has a good point, you don't need to eject the the FDR/CVR, you need the data not the whole shooting match.
Solid state memory is fairly robust and light, ejectable data capsules could be modular so more than one could be carried for little gain in weight, heaviest component would be the battery for the location beacon.
Also rather than broadcasting till it dies, some sort of algorithm to broadcast high power for location purposes for 1 minute, then low power for a period, then shut down and repeat. This would extend battery life/reduce battery size required.

Multi-facted approach would be ideal, data streaming via satellite, squawk changing to either 7700 or a new code (7400?).

The trigger mechanism(s) and parameters need careful consideration, don't want it triggered unnecessarily but it could be staged, heavy turbulence could invoke data streaming, ROD over a prescribed limit below 15k (to allow for emergency descents due pressurisation issues), etc.
Momoe is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 12:05
  #1915 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,070
All of this talk of tracking and ejectable recorders seems to me to be waste of time and money.
Failure to recover the recorders is extremely rare, MH370 is a one-off event.
Finding the recorders in a few days rather than a few weeks is not going to affect safety or save lives.
The probability of finding survivors following a crash at sea is very low and in such cases we would expect to find EPIRB transmisssions anyway so what exactly would be gained by such changes ?
The Ancient Geek is online now  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 12:40
  #1916 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 935
All of this talk of tracking and ejectable recorders seems to me to be waste of time and money.
Failure to recover the recorders is extremely rare, MH370 is a one-off event.
Exactly. A better ELT however (intended to save survivors) would be much more important than a device which allows to publish the report a few days earlier. In which major large aircraft accident of the last 50 years has the ELT been of any help to the survivors?
If the ELT points you to the crash site, finding the recorders will typically be a piece of cake.
Volume is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 13:04
  #1917 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,348
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek View Post
All of this talk of tracking and ejectable recorders seems to me to be waste of time and money.
Failure to recover the recorders is extremely rare, MH370 is a one-off event.
Finding the recorders in a few days rather than a few weeks is not going to affect safety or save lives.
The probability of finding survivors following a crash at sea is very low and in such cases we would expect to find EPIRB transmisssions anyway so what exactly would be gained by such changes ?
I agree that failure to recover the recorders is rare, but difficulty finding them is common.
The cost of the search even the relatively short one with Air Asia is mindbendingly huge. Had the weather continued bad for another week, the ULBs would have died and increased the problems for the search.

So we have the typical case of its a rare event but when it happens it is extremely costly to the level of government spending limits costly in some cases. This cost eventually works its way through to the ticket price or taxes.

Against that we have the relatively cheap fixes for the problem which from an engineering viewpoint are trivial.

It is the classic beancounter bind. It costs their account money and yet the probability of something happening that provides ROI to _their account_ is very low. So they would be spending something to save someone else money. That won't fly with beancounters.

However, imagine if all the searches for black boxes - even the simple successful ones - had been just 2 days shorter. The savings to the aviation industry and governments running SAR OPS would be enormous. I think better design of crash and DFDR/CVR locator systems or different ways to recover the data will be an industry mandate possibly within 5 years.
Ian W is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 13:05
  #1918 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 23
Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore

I've followed this entire thread and there is one point that seems to have been missed about Inmarsat supposedly offering free tracking for airlines.

Narrow body aircraft such as the A320 and B737 do not have satellite coms as standard equipment. It is a customer option (read: expensive). Most airlines do not order it. Perhaps it is standard equipment on wide bodies but that would not have helped in this incident.

So to suggest that as a cheap option for narrow body airliners is ignoring a glaring fact.
Derfred is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 13:12
  #1919 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,983
Originally Posted by Ian W
It is the classic beancounter bind. It costs their account money and yet the probability of something happening that provides ROI to _their account_ is very low...

...will be an industry mandate possibly within 5 years.
Correct. Mandate it. Then there's no bickering amoungst the spreadsheeters. The days of people "doing the right thing" if it costs money are long gone. Regulation is the only way.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2015, 13:20
  #1920 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 19
Considering all the advances being made in Battery Technology. Has there been any discussions on using a battery that could go, say, 60-90 days?

Or do the most current CVR, and FDR's already utilize the most advanced type?
Nieuport28 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.