Future of the black box
 

Hi all,

I'm a journalist, and I'm trying to produce a short film on the development of flight recorders. I'm looking at the history, the current limitations of, and what pilots/the aviation industry envision as the future of flight recorders.

Because of the MH370 disappearance some have called for 'real-time' data streams - I realise the arguments against this practice are the large volume of data that would need to be streamed and the cost involved of using satellites.

Flyht Aerospace solutions think they have a solution to these two problems, by using compressed data streams that can then be decoded back on land.

I'd really like to hear your thoughts what could work in future and what developments in the next few years might make the recovery of current flight recorders easier (I know regulations for longer battery life on black box recorders are due to come in to force at the end of this decade.)

I'm based in London, so if anyone knows of any work being carried out by the British aviation industry or universities based in the UK, to come up with new ways of recording flight data, please let me know.

Thanks for your time.

Flight International had an article on FDR technology and future outlook after AF447.

Star in-flight safety monitoring system gains traction - 1/14/2011 - Flight Global

In there it mentions STAR-ISMS (STARISMS - Star Navigation - Aviation Innovation - Canada) which is also developed by a Canadian company (what is it with Canadians and telemetry?) and is a similar solution to the one that Flyht proposes (but obviously not as good with marketing).

If I'm not mistaken, the same issue also had a story that mentioned detachable floating FDRs were also being considered. If not, a quick Google search will bring up plenty of info on this.

Overall though, bear in mind the pragmatic view in the following blog that needs to be addressed once the media dust has settled. To be clear, I'm all for innovation but I also know that in the end the business case has to add up.

https://medium.com/evidence-base/47c7e89600ba

Why haven’t airlines rushed to install the system on the thousands of planes in their fleets? The sad irony is that incidents like the loss of Flight MH370 are so rare nowadays that it’s hard to justify even moderate additional costs that might help solve such mysteries. After the Air France disaster, the International Civil Aviation Organization did consider the issue, but the industry has concluded that the likely savings — in terms of search, rescue and recovery costs — are too small.

David Learmount, an aviation safety expert with the trade publication Flightglobal, puts it bluntly: “The cost-benefit analysis doesn’t work out because aviation doesn’t kill enough people any longer to make it worth installing.”


Would be interested in what comes out of your work, we are so saturated nowadays from reality and shock TV (as is usually the case with "documentaries" about aircraft) that quality, factual, informative and educational shows seem to have sadly been relegated to the realm of history.

I think they should be externally mounted and be designed to detach and float upon impact/submersion, possibly a pressure switch set for a few hundred feet below sea level igniting a squib (charge). Obviously it should float, would make recovery much easier.

grounded

You would still potentially still be left looking for the haystack, let alone the needle.

Personally, I think the most important change would be to mandate aircraft reporting their position by satellite every 2 minuetes or so, not for ATC purposes per se, but for quick location purposes in SAR instances like this. This function should be independent and isolated from the flight crew, so they can not shut it down. It should probably be on a separate bus and backed up by battery and should report any power loss from the main busses. The battery should have sufficient storage capacity to maintain transmissions for the maximum endurance of the type.

The detachable CVR/SSFDR could with a battery back up be traceable by satellite. This could potentially save lives in a ditching (usually the elt would work in s successful ditching anyways. But global positioning is muck faster and more accurate.

An interesting idea, but consider whether you'd want to be the engineer responsible for implementing such a system when something like a short causes the squib to detonate in-flight and takes out the aircraft.

You know, Lockheed had a really great idea when they started installing a locator beacon in the P3C Orions, way back in 1978. This beacon is designed to seperate from the aircraft and either 'fly' down to the surface or float to the surface, depending on whether the crash was inflight, on the ground or underwater.

Its located in the vertical stabilizer, right side, and is around one meter square. Its hooked to the airframe at its aft edge, and the forward edge is latched against strong spring pressure, ready for release. Its aerodynamically shaped on its inner surface, flat on the outer surface, so when its released inflight, the forward surface pops out into the airstream, and the combination of spring pressure and airflow pressure take it away from the airframe, and it flies down to earth/ocean like a falling leaf. It starts transmitting immediately and will continue to do so for some time, I don't recall exactly how long, anyway that device will summon searchers and the survivors and 'black boxes' will be found quick smart!
The device is automatically released when any one of several, seven I think, crash detectors are disturbed. One in each wing tip, each side of the forward pressure bulkhead, wing center section, and in the tail.
For my money, its a great idea and will get the required result without having to rely on or be disturbed by anyone onboard.
Next time you see a P3C from the starboard side, look for it, its easily distinguishable! :ok:

With a 406 beacon, the haystack will be immediately traceable. You only have to look at the EPIRBs (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons) carried by boats and the success they have achieved to realise how successful such a system could be.

Any fancy-pants mechanical release mechanism will need to somehow not get encased in mangled metal. I am surprised they are as successful as they are at remotely removing these things from wreckage.

As soon as any one of the detectors senses deformation, the beacon is instantly released, its designed not to remain with the airframe for more than a couple of m/seconds.

C-5
 

The C-5, of the real late 1960's had a locator mounted on top the tee tail. It was about a square meter and did float. I don't recall exactly what deployed the unit, been about 30 years since I was current in the beast.

I don't think it should be on any bus. Let it derive its power from a small RAT or PV panels. During certification confirm that if it or its power supply catches fire, no damage can be ever be sustained by the aircraft.

Dear Kbryan:
Please consider what Mr Learmount has already put forth.
Airlines have already figured out what info they want to track and collect for inflight monitoring. See the ACARS suites and, for example, the RR monitoring programs. The suggestion being made is to transmit, collect, and track a mountain of data that they are not going to use.

What's the point of doing that? There isn't one.

Any replacement for the "black box" needs to do all that a black box now does, and then add a value not currently present.

What, pray tell, do you think that is?

There is already ample means to keep track of an aircraft, when one considers that the design criteria for aircraft is that people fly them with the intention of flying them safely, of getting to their destination, and being reliable to the nth degree.

When you take a novel/one-off event like MAL and try to apply its circumstances to day in and day out airline and flying operations, you get a bad fit.

1. If the cascading series of malfunctions line is correct, tracking the aricraft isn't the problem, figuring out those systems and the "graceful degradation" design challenge is the problem to solve.

2. If you follow the human angency line of thinking, you run into the contradiction of WHY airliners are designed in the first place -- to get somewhere and not get lost -- and why the entire flight tracking regime already existant is there -- to help the aircraft get where it is going. These are both designed and operated under the assumption that aircraft are used for their intended purpose. 99.99999999%+ of the time, aircraft are.

I find this entire line of inquiry without value. Furthermore, all that exotic tracking capability being bandied about would not have saved the souls on the aircraft. All it would do is help find the crash site sooner. It took a few years to find AF 447, and oddly enough, while that search was going on, the world kept turning and planes kept flying.

Making policy based on histrionics and novel statistical outliers results in poor policy.

Dozy
 

The unit would be external, this would not be a difficult device to fit and would be reliable. No less dangerous than any of the squibs in engine and cargo pit fire bottles.

EPIRBS are not sufficient. Google EPIRB problems and you will see why.

The ELT mounted just forward of the vertical stab is designed to pop out in a crash in water, rarely happens.

Every CPDLC/ADSC message from an aircraft to the satellite costs $2, you think airlines are wiling to pay $60 an hour for each aircraft? No chance

I read somewhere that the ULB 'pings' once per second, and at this rate the battery lasts 30days. As most Sonar Locators move very slowly, would it not be better to have the beacon to send 3 pings then wait a minute before sending a further 3 pings. This way the battery consumption would be 20 times less, and the ULB would be active for 600days. ?

I can see this thread filling up with what-if ideas and blasts from the past faster than you can say FDR, so here's what the first hit of a Google search on "airbus floating FDR" brings up (see pdf file pp. 19-29):

Flight Data Recovery - Time for evolutions

Haven't found a similar article from other aircraft manufacturers but I'm sure there will be a view from Boeing on this topic at some point in the not too distant future.