There seems to have quite some time taken to find the wreckage, have their been any statements on whether the sonar transponders worked properly, and if they do why the search was so long ?

Several other explanations have already been offered:
1. It was not know where the airplane went down
2. The strong currents spread out the wreckage
3. Some of the wreckage was buried in silt
4. There is a lot of other junk on the sea floor, for example wreckage from the battle of the Java Sea in World War II and other wrecks happening on these heavily traveled sea lanes.

On Phil Gollin ... time to locate the recorders
 

According to my A0283 plot (sorry to label it like this, but I try to keep track of different plots and their updates including my own). On December 29th there was an official statement about searching/listening for pings around a specific coordinate and a 15 miles radius around it. If these were nautical miles then the FDR was a the edge of that radius or just outside. If they were statute miles then the recorders were outside that area.

If they were on the edge then you should have to know the effective range of the listening devices. Ranges mentioned during recent investigations are between 500-2000 meters.

During the MH370 search I read a comment which stated reduced effectiveness in shallow water. Next to the fact that in general in shallow areas there is more traffic and vessel noise. This is quite a busy area. It suprised me that only now they have closed a sector for traffic for better listening. A few days ago a big vessel was sailing right through the area (if you may believe that tracking site). So to better answer your question, we need someone who can say something about effective range in shallow water. The floor here was sand according to an official statement. Depth at the location was 30-32 meters.

This BBC article on the black box recovery contains a video segment in the middle showing the (presumably) AAIB CVR/FDR analysis room and a short interview with an accident investigator about recorder analysis.

Regarding location of the data recorders, from all the conjecture that's gone before it seems entirely consistent that they would have been detatched on impact along with the apu and the bottom hull aft of the pressure bulkhead, sinking rapidly to the bottom while the relatively buoyant fin was carried downstream before sinking itself.

In all this, the real heroes are the divers. "Only 6 knot current".

Could someone please enlighten me as to why Boeing and NTSB are more trustworthy than Airbus and BEA?

I really don't get this whole A vs B thing some of you have got going. And why shouldn't BEA be trusted but ATSB should? I just don't get it. To me all planes are created equally beautiful but with different strengths to suit different persons and needs.

Also, some statement about autopsies and stuff.... of course there are going to be autopsies but you don't have to examine every single person in depth because some time cause of death is obvious to the naked eye and you can extrapolate from that.

:ok:
You can't swim against this. These divers are risking their lives with very narrow windows to do it in (when it calms down). I hope the media pressure doesn't make them do something stupid.

Mr Snuggles
 

Mr snuggles you're so right and it's so tiresome, especially the irrationality displayed by a lot of pilots who otherwise like to boast of their superior reasoning. It only convinces me that maybe some of these guys weren't so superior as they think, if despite all statistics they genuinely think Airbuses are inherently dangerous.

Boeing are very involved in the search for MH370 and the investigation into Asiana 214, but no-one has ever suggested any conflict of interest there. It's just how it goes sadly. Ironic, given the number of pilots who pride themselves on their rationality and like to remind us how flying is the safest form of transport, but then are as irrational as the most feared flyer when they're comparing products....

I will keep flying Airbuses as they have exactly the same chance of crashing, but generally a more comfortable economy product.

(the good thing is any time someone tells me I shouldn't be nervous about flying in turbulence because it's irrational, I can just point to all the Boeing guys who appear to be terrified of flying on Airbus equipment and are doing their best to put anyone who listens off flying. Good job guys.)

Radar characteristics
 

"The signal needs to be of just the right strength to be partially reflected thus showing the WX. The snag is the weaker beam also suffers attenuation."

This is not true. All radar beams suffer attenuation. A stronger beam can make it through the precip when weaker beams may not. The radar processes the echo after the beam has been transmitted, so a stronger beam will always produce a stronger echo. Radars also attempt to compensate for the attenuation (your mileage may vary).

A mention has been made here of radar and super-cells. Super-cells are rotating thunderstorms that are unlikely at ITCZ latitudes - they are what produce most tornadoes, especially in the US midwest. Super-cells may have a bounded weak echo region (a rapid updraft with a weak radar echo). I don't think that's what's going on here.

But... an ordinary very strong thunderstorm cell can also produce weak echos in the updraft. Monsoon storms are likely to be pulse-severe - they pop up, rain in their own inflow, and die, followed by another one triggered by the outflow from that rain. To a normal observer, it looks like one storm moving along, but the reality is more complex. On a satellite picture, the only clue may be a series of overshooting tops (colder spots) in a general area of cold tops.

Airbus to get ejectable black boxes...
Airbus planes will soon carry ejectable, floating black boxes to aid in their location.

But wouldn't they also get carried away with the ocean currents if they floated?

Which floating black box will presumably be fitted with an ELT. Hooray !

Please note that the article says this will be a second black box copy of the version secured to the airframe.

The article quotes an unnamed spokesman for the European Air Security Agency saying that "the change is generally quick".

I have to wonder if the spokesman understands the reality of rolling out such an option. I know the major manufacturers could design such a system (in a sense it is existing tech). Getting it approved would take a while, but getting every aircraft retrofitted would be a marathon. Such changes are not "generally quick".

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.

The problem is when the ULBs do not transmit as was the case initially with these blackboxes. And the ULBs have a limited range?

A better option would be to transmit the FDR data using telemetry to a ground based station via satellite. Transmission could be triggered by a master caution going off by the aircraft's warning system.

The industry will get the system that the sharp avionics salesman/salesmen get sold to the chairman of the board of the airline and its beancounters. In almost all cases this will be the wrong system for the job but the salesman will make a lot of commission.

Cockpit voice recorder.
 

According to ABC TV news (Aus) 'Divers have recovered the cockpit voice recorder, Official.'

FD,Per ICAO Annex 13, the release of information is under the jurisdiction of the airline's country of registry in this case. Secondary parties involved in the confidential sharing of information include the country of incidence and manufacture of the aircraft. Final report data must be shared among operators of type, the manufacturer and participating ICAO governing entities, however public release of this information is primarily up to the state of registry's local laws and customs.

CVR transcripts fall under stricter guidelines due to privacy concerns - this information can be published if the investigating state's laws and customs permit it.

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.

According to the RT clip posted earlier, the rescue crew on the barge are all Russian.

I posted this 3 January. So yes autopsies have been done. I just think they don't want to talk about it because of family sensitivities.

CVR RECOVERED
 

By Nilufar Rizki


JAKARTA (Reuters) - Divers retrieved the cockpit voice recorder from the wreck of an AirAsia passenger jet on Tuesday, MetroTV said quoting a transport official, a key piece of evidence for investigators to determine the cause of the crash that killed 162 people.

The cockpit voice recorder, which records conversations between the pilots and with air traffic controllers, was found close to where the flight data recorder was recovered from the bottom of the Java Sea on Monday, the report said.

CVR retreived
 

AirAsia: Second black box retrieved – report

AirAsia: Second black box retrieved ? report | World | 3 News

No doubt the Indonesian search and rescue organisation will parade it around for the cameras like they did for the FDR. :ok: They're loving the attention, but kudos to them and all involved in the SAR effort. They deserve all the accolades they get.

If the FDR is in great condition then the data readout will be quick (hours or days).

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.

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 . :ooh:

The problem is more along the lines of accidental ejection, especially if such an accidental ejection could itself cause safety issues (damage to the aircraft, etc.)

Airbus vs. Boeing have been debating this for months. From an NTSB meeting last year:

Boeing, Airbus at odds over black boxes that eject

Give it 2 weeks to be safe.
You should probably see selected FDR data first. The voice will probably be held back while they discuss what is proper to release.

Don't know whether this has been posted before, but it shows a detailed map of what's been found in this area.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7MoJSOCEAEKkNs.jpg

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.

CVR RECORDINGS
 

AMEN AMEN AMEN :ok:

Indeed... not to mention this little comment right at the end of the article. :D

"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

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.

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... ?

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)

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.

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".

One type is made from fibreglass filled with foam...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj-aOVUQMEE

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

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.

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 :confused:
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.