Air Asia Indonesia Lost Contact from Surabaya to Singapore
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numerous news reports about the recovery of QZ8501's flight data recorder say it might take up to a month to read the data. Can anyone tell me if this is true and why it takes so long, especially if the FDR is intact, as this one seems to be?
Even so, after the data has been downloaded, all the information collected must then be validated / checked for quality. E.g., suppose we read out a series of sidestick movements -- how do we know that those were the actual movements of the sidestick, and not representing a sensor malfunction, or perhaps a recording error from the FDR itself?
There are hundreds of parameters which much be checked for correctness. Normally this quality check can be completed quickly as well, but in cases of discrepancy it can take many months to fully validate the data.
Various regulations stipulate that each FDR/CVR must be checked and analyzed for data quality (including a full-flight parameter readout) at least once every 12 months. Unfortunately there have been recorder errors undetected until after an accident, making retrieval & analysis a very long and tedious process.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numerous news reports about the recovery of QZ8501's flight data recorder say it might take up to a month to read the data. Can anyone tell me if this is true and why it takes so long, especially if the FDR is intact, as this one seems to be?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they would. And what's the problem? None
First they are found, and even if thousand miles away, they contain all data, even the position of crash.
First they are found, and even if thousand miles away, they contain all data, even the position of crash.
Airbus vs. Boeing have been debating this for months. From an NTSB meeting last year:
Boeing, Airbus at odds over black boxes that eject
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how long will it be before the data gets leaked to social media? My guess is, give it a week and we'll be discussing about it here .
You should probably see selected FDR data first. The voice will probably be held back while they discuss what is proper to release.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know whether this has been posted before, but it shows a detailed map of what's been found in this area.
Object 18 could be the engine. Object 9 could be the fuselage. "Jenazah" is deceased (body).
Source: Twitter
Object 18 could be the engine. Object 9 could be the fuselage. "Jenazah" is deceased (body).
Source: Twitter
Having looked at lots and lots of digital FDR data over the years (most for incidents, not accidents), it does take some time to make sense of the data. Data corruption is not uncommon, nor is valid but 'miscaled' data (e.g. off by a factor of 2 or 4, that sort of thing), and things like power transfers or momentary power interrupts can corrupt data for several seconds.
Actual CVR recordings are seldom (never?) released after a fatal accident - only a transcript will be released to the public, and that's not likely to be real soon. I listened to one CVR when I was actively involved in an investigation (there was a 'click' that they wanted my opinion of what the sound was). Let's just say that listening to doomed pilots last words is not pleasant.
There will undoubtedly be complaints that more information is not forthcoming over the next several weeks. That's by design - during an active investigation the participants are effectively under a gag order. Unauthorized release of information can be career limiting - all data release is to be from the investigating authority. Sure, there'll be some leaks, but much of it may well be wrong (or at least inaccurate), which is why all the information is supposed to be released through channels.
So cool it with all the conspiracy theories for a while. The information will be released in due time.
Actual CVR recordings are seldom (never?) released after a fatal accident - only a transcript will be released to the public, and that's not likely to be real soon. I listened to one CVR when I was actively involved in an investigation (there was a 'click' that they wanted my opinion of what the sound was). Let's just say that listening to doomed pilots last words is not pleasant.
There will undoubtedly be complaints that more information is not forthcoming over the next several weeks. That's by design - during an active investigation the participants are effectively under a gag order. Unauthorized release of information can be career limiting - all data release is to be from the investigating authority. Sure, there'll be some leaks, but much of it may well be wrong (or at least inaccurate), which is why all the information is supposed to be released through channels.
So cool it with all the conspiracy theories for a while. The information will be released in due time.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
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.
"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
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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... ?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: KSAN
Age: 62
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj-aOVUQMEE
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: N5552.0W00419.0ish
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by airbus DR article
'The change is generally quick,' the spokesman added on Monday
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... ?
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... ?
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.