|
XCVR technology long implemented in China Eastern. This XCVR with certain software, can detects words that are sensitive to managements.
I do not think the CAAC will review the information on the CVR. Face reason they would rather damage it and sent it back to boeing for the analysis. They will come up with a story like unlawful interference rather what was speculated previously. Sorry for all. I know this is disappointing but this is how it works in china. |
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
(Post 11223249)
I think there are two major reasons. First, there simply isn't enough bandwidth available using 'traditional' systems such as VHF datalink and SATCOM. CVRs and FDRs generate a huge volume of data and when you multiply that by the large number of aircraft that might be airborne in the same area at the same time, the available bandwidth isn't sufficient to reliably support data streaming. Second, is cost. Data streaming is expensive and nobody's been able to justify the extra cost on safety grounds. That said, technology is constantly changing and there will no doubt come a time when streaming of CVR and FDR becomes feasible. Mind you, international regulatory change normally take years so it will no doubt be a long time before data streaming becomes the 'norm'.
|
Originally Posted by m0nkfish
(Post 11223769)
I'm not an expert on satellite communications but would be interested to hear from anyone that is. Do the SATCOM packages installed on civilian aircraft require the antenna to be aligned with an appropriate satellite? If so, it is likely that any uplink is going to be terminated at the point where you are going to most want the data from the FDR/CVR when the aircraft departs from controlled flight (assuming there is such a departure).
Regarding the spying out on Pilots: I don't think, this data goes into the regular CVR/FDR, though more into a QAR type, which probably won't survive a crash like MU5735. Though useful, to "control" the political thinking of pilots, ehhhh, to enhance safety to correct pilot errors before these can become an issue. |
Originally Posted by m0nkfish
(Post 11223769)
I'm not an expert on satellite communications but would be interested to hear from anyone that is. Do the SATCOM packages installed on civilian aircraft require the antenna to be aligned with an appropriate satellite? If so, it is likely that any uplink is going to be terminated at the point where you are going to most want the data from the FDR/CVR when the aircraft departs from controlled flight (assuming there is such a departure).
|
Slight detour: In-flight internet isn't done by satellite only. There are newer technologies available that connect an aircraft at cruise altitude to LTE networks on the ground using special upward pointing antennas that cover a radius of about 150km. That obviously works over land only, but delivers decent enough throughput. Aircraft antennas are being installed on the bottom of the fuselage. Much cheaper also for airlines. If you're interested in the details, google "Nokia A2G" for example. The system has been rolled out throughout most of Europe (European Aviation Network/EAN), I don't know about China. But Chinese companies are leading in mobile network tech, so I'd presume they have something like that.
|
Do the SATCOM packages installed on civilian aircraft require the antenna to be aligned with an appropriate satellite? Longer answer: and it isn't easy. I worked with a company that does the satellite internet connection for a major US operator, and saw the antenna system with the covers off. The antenna itself is about a metre long and 10cm square. It is attached to a serious dual-gymbal positioning system which can whizz it around at great speed - it is dangerous to be close to it when it is running. iirc it can pull up to about 100A in turbulence. There is however an assumption that it will be on the top surface of the aircraft, not the bottom or the side. |
I think recent aircraft use phased array solid state antennas with no moving parts. Its the long thin bulge on the top of the aircraft.
|
WSJ: China Eastern nosedive was intentional
Flight data indicates someone in the cockpit intentionally crashed a China Eastern jet earlier this year, according to people familiar with U.S. officials’ preliminary assessment of what led to the accident. The Boeing 737-800 was cruising at high altitude when it suddenly pitched into a near-vertical descent, plummeting into a mountain at extreme speed. Data from a black box recovered in the crash suggests inputs to the controls pushed the plane into the fatal dive, these people said. “The plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit,” said a person who is familiar with American officials’ preliminary assessment, which includes an analysis of information extracted from the plane’s damaged flight-data recorder. Also underpinning the American officials’ assessment, this person said: Chinese authorities, who are leading the investigation, so far haven’t flagged any mechanical or flight-control problems with the plane involved in the March 21 crash in southern China. That model is a workhorse of the global aviation industry and is part of a family of Boeing aircraft that have one of the best safety records in commercial flying. |
https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/black-...tentional-act/
Black box on doomed China Eastern flight indicates crash was intentional: report |
The authorities will now be very concerned with the issue of pilot's mental health if this is true. After the Germanwings crash seven years ago, and a few before that which were suspected but not proven, something needs to be done.
Possibly we're going back to the days of not being left alone in the flight deck again. A psychiatric evaluation could be added to our medicals alongside the usual ECG, audiogram etc. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 11231751)
Possibly we're going back to the days of not being left alone in the flight deck again.
|
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 11231751)
Possibly we're going back to the days of not being left alone in the flight deck again. A psychiatric evaluation could be added to our medicals alongside the usual ECG, audiogram etc.
|
For now, the description is still vague and does not trace 1:1 back to a deliberate pilot (or someone else's) action.
The description suggests, it was a nose-down happening, so a pitch issue and no aileron input or engine failure or so. The description doesn't say, whether this is a control column or trim happening. A deliberate pilot action would not so much match with a control regain, halfway down and subsequently again a nose-down movement. Nor would a deliberate action match with the obvious attempt to "keep the airplane on course". Strange thing is, we only do hear about the FDR results and not about the CVR, where the CVR might give the verbal pilot interaction, a more conclusive aspect around a deliberate action. So, for now, the whole is far from conclusive (despite the world press jumping on the "deliberate" description). |
The “authorities” were very concerned seven years ago and did pretty much nothing. All psychiatric evaluations will do is create a bunch of false positives; tell a bunch of psychiatrists/psychologists to find problem pilots and they will go and find them for you. Doesn’t matter if they are the risky ones; Something Will Have Been Done. And the at risk pilots will be wise enough to *gasp* hide their problems.
The problem is rare enough that the governments/regulators/airlines/management can afford the occasional worldwide suicide/hull loss versus the worldwide cost of doing something effective about it. Key word being effective. So anticipate some ineffective, not thought through responses that will be quietly dropped in the future at some point. |
WideScreen has it occurred to you that the other two pilots in the flight deck may have disagreed with the other pilot and perhaps attempted to take control?
|
I’m not buying it.
These Boeings have a history of “deliberately” crashing. The only suicide I know of that’s been confirmed was the German Wings one. The rest are conjecture to save the manufacturer, |
Originally Posted by Jonty
(Post 11231808)
I’m not buying it.
These Boeings have a history of “deliberately” crashing. The only suicide I know of that’s been confirmed was the German Wings one. The rest are conjecture to save the manufacturer, |
BBC News: China Eastern plane crash likely intentional, US reports say
|
If we look at the number of actual or suspected suicide crashes involving just commercial flights and excluding terrorist incidents, the numbers are quite disturbing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot A technical issue on a particular type which was causing a hull loss this frequently would be unacceptable and the fleet would be grounded until it was rectified. The authorities will need to be seen to be taking action, even if it's ineffective at least they tried something. Having a cabin crew come in when one pilot left the flight deck didn't really achieve anything. The next step could be psychiatric evaluations which enable the buck to be passed on to the psychiatrist if anything happens. |
Let's not forget there are cultures where Pilot Suicide is considered unacceptable as a cause for a crash hence the local authorities and the airline themselves will look for a face saving alternative - blaming the plane - even though in the case of (e.g.) EgyptAir 990 it was pretty clear that the relief pilot had caused the crash.....
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:18. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.