AF 447 Flight Recorder Found In the Atlantic

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AF 447 Flight Recorder Found In the Atlantic

Posted by timothy on Sunday May 1, 2011 @07:53AM from the famous-memory-part dept.

romiz writes "The memory of the flight recorder for the Air France 447 flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, crashed on June 1st 2009, has been found on the seabed of the Atlantic Ocean, and brought back to the surface in good shape. This is the data recorder, which saves the flight parameters. The search is still continuing in hope of finding the voice recorder containing the sounds recorded in the plane's cockpit."

218 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

first? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 07:55 · Score: -1

yup, first post bitches.
1. Re:first? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:47 · Score: -1
  
  This gentleman actually was first before a coward tagged him with overrated.
Needle in a Hay Stack by Ashenkase · 2011-05-01 08:00 · Score: 0

I wonder how far down it was?
1. Re:Needle in a Hay Stack by cdrudge · 2011-05-01 08:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  All the way.
2. Re:Needle in a Hay Stack by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  The pictures show it clearly sitting on the surface, more or less exposed.
3. Re:Needle in a Hay Stack by PPH · 2011-05-01 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Is that you, FZ?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:Needle in a Hay Stack by rts008 · 2011-05-01 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  On the very bottom, no less!
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
5. Re:Needle in a Hay Stack by polymath69 · 2011-05-01 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  All the way.
  
  How many is that in turtles?
  
  --
  
  --
  I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
6. Re:Needle in a Hay Stack by mcneely.mike · 2011-05-01 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Infinity +1
  
  --
  soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
7. Re:Needle in a Hay Stack by sFurbo · 2011-05-01 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  Would that be aleph-naught plus one, of omega plus one? Quite different concepts, you know.
Amazing by HangingChad · 2011-05-01 08:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

The memory of the flight recorder for the Air France 447 flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, crashed on June 1st 2009, has been found on the seabed of the Atlantic Ocean...
When you look at the twisted mass of wreckage the flight recorder came from, finding the data unit is a miracle. Thousands of feet underwater, working remotely in a pile of twisted metal and they find a little memory unit. I have trouble finding my car keys some days.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
1. Re:Amazing by Dunbal · 2011-05-01 08:10 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I have trouble finding my car keys some days.
  I'm sure if you spent a couple dozen million dollars, you would find your car keys very quickly.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  But if they were on the ocean floor, you probably wouldn't.
3. Re:Amazing by syousef · 2011-05-01 08:29 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I have trouble finding my car keys some days.
  I'm sure if you spent a couple dozen million dollars, you would find your car keys very quickly.
  Surely at that price it would be more cost effective to just buy a new car every day. $24M @ $30k per car would get you 800 days or over 2 years before you have to go searching for another day's car. If you drive a cheaper car and/or buy in bulk you could probably push that to 3 1/2 years. Or better yet buy or fit one out so that it's keyless. Of course your car won't be as cool as anything that can submerge a few thousand feet and still operate, but hey thems the breaks kid.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
4. Re:Amazing by SydShamino · 2011-05-01 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  1% interest rate on $24M would be enough to pay the annual salaries of chauffeurs 24/7 to sit in your driveway holding your keys, for life.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
5. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:41 · Score: -1
  
  No one has mentioned the obvious and cheapest solution - buy a Haitian kid for $20 and glue him to your keys. Then whenever you need them, just follow your nose. Remember the shaker attachment is extra.
6. Re:Amazing by Luckyo · 2011-05-01 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  This is quite possibly one of the best examples of just how far underwater robotics have come. They literally found something that is harder to find then a needle in a haystack by several orders of magnitude.
7. Re:Amazing by Aardpig · 2011-05-01 08:57 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  In fact, finding a needle in a haystack is trivial. Douse the whole stack in gas, torch it, and then run a strong electromagnet over the ash.
  
  --
  Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
8. Re:Amazing by kangsterizer · 2011-05-01 09:04 · Score: 2
  
  Of euros. I think it's worth mentioning that the French found it. Not that they've been fast tho , but credit where it's due ;-)
9. Re:Amazing by Tripp1000 · 2011-05-01 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  The memory of the flight recorder for the Air France 447 flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, crashed on June 1st 2009, has been found on the seabed of the Atlantic Ocean...
  When you look at the twisted mass of wreckage the flight recorder came from, finding the data unit is a miracle. Thousands of feet underwater, working remotely in a pile of twisted metal and they find a little memory unit. I have trouble finding my car keys some days.
  Sometimes you have to go to extreme measures to get the answers you need. I am sure the 24 million is money well spent, especially if they find out that a previously unknown mechanical failure caused the issue. Finding a mechanic failure could prevent future deaths. If the cause was terrorism, then the hunt would begin for those responsible.
10. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  That would be pretty fucking awesome, too!
11. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  That's even less time than it took to find Obama's long form birth certificate.
  (Remember that only a few months ago, the Governor of Hawaii could find it.)
  Maybe it's a forgery. (The memory, not the birth certificate.) ;-)
12. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  For that amount you could hire me to hold your keys for you. Minimum wage + benefits.
  You could even just take 6 or 8 million and pay me a wage from the interest...
  If the car is nice enough, I may even drive it for you.
  Sonny.
  (captcha = grandpa)
13. Re:Amazing by John+Hasler · 2011-05-01 09:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think it's worth mentioning that the French found it.
  
  With more than a little of help from the Americans at WHOI .
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
14. Re:Amazing by zippthorne · 2011-05-01 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  What is the gas for?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
15. Re:Amazing by scrib · 2011-05-01 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  What is the gas for?
  Fun.
  Although, I'm not sure how the magnet will help you find a charred pine needle in a mess like that...
  I always wondered why some other sort of needle would be mixed in with hay.
  
  --
  Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
16. Re:Amazing by jd · 2011-05-01 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to charge spectators for watching the conflaguration, you gotta make it spectacular.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
17. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  did you look at the pictures? it's not like they had to pick through the wreckage.. it was sitting right there..
  they got fuckin' lucky.
18. Re:Amazing by hawguy · 2011-05-01 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Surely at that price it would be more cost effective to just buy a new car every day. $24M @ $30k per car would get you 800 days or over 2 years before you have to go searching for another day's car. If you drive a cheaper car and/or buy in bulk you could probably push that to 3 1/2 years. Or better yet buy or fit one out so that it's keyless. Of course your car won't be as cool as anything that can submerge a few thousand feet and still operate, but hey thems the breaks kid.
  If you're looking for cost effectiveness, why not just buy an endless supply of spare keys? Or one keyfinder?
19. Re:Amazing by moonbender · 2011-05-01 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Did you help the French find the memory unit? WHO, I?
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
20. Re:Amazing by theshowmecanuck · 2011-05-01 11:29 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  All it took was Airbus being charged by France with manslaughter over the crash. They spent the money to make a real effort to find the wreckage and black boxes this time; in an effort to get out of the charges.
  For those who don't know, France follows Napoleonic Law, not Common Law like in Britain, Canada (and most other commonwealth countries), and of course, America. In common law you are innocent until proven guilty. In Napoleonic law, they don't file charges or (generally) put you in jail until investigation convinces authorities that you are guilty (as I understand it, if murder etc. is involved, they might put you in jail while they investigate, but you won't be charged until they are convinced you are guilty). You have to prove your innocence. So basically, the government is pretty certain they will be able to convict Airbus on the manslaughter charges if they actually charged them. And thus, the search is likely in the effort to prove their innocence, not in the effort of finding the truth to ensure this type of crash doesn't happen again.
  I'm not sure if executives of a company can be put in prison for manslaughter if their company is convicted of it. Or of any other crime for that matter. If anyone knows that would be interesting to hear.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
21. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  If the cause was terrorism, then the hunt would begin for those responsible.
  Isn't the main point of terrorism to spread terror? If nobody knows that you did it, what's the point?
22. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  the haystack could be a bit damp. gas == FTFY !
23. Re:Amazing by Dunbal · 2011-05-01 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  There's a little bit more to the Code Napoléon than that. It's actually a quite civilized system. But remember that Napoleon was the bad guy.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
24. Re:Amazing by Solandri · 2011-05-01 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  The previous "crowning moment" of an underwater search and recovery was the cargo door from United 811. The door blew out on a flight from Hawaii, killing 9 people. After an extensive search 15,000 ft underwater (chapter 5, page 4-16) they found and recovered the cargo door from the floor of the Pacific. It was vital to determining that a design flaw in the door's locking mechanism caused the accident. (I remember the Oceans '91 paper being better, but it's behind a paywall.)
  
  Finding something this small in the middle of the Atlantic at these depths is quite an accomplishment. The cargo door at least was large enough to generate a return on sidescan sonar, and was sitting in relatively flat terrain.
25. Re:Amazing by fnj · 2011-05-01 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  Napoleonic law. Brought to you by the country which brought you Napoleon. Let's hear it for the French. [sound of zero hands clapping]
26. Re:Amazing by RajivSLK · 2011-05-01 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Also not all of Canada is based up English Common Law. Quebec's laws are derived from Napoleonic Law.
27. Re:Amazing by theshowmecanuck · 2011-05-01 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe some of the laws in Quebec are Napoleonic. But most are the same as the rest of Canada. We have one set of federal laws that extend to Quebec as well. And federal laws in Canada generally trump provincial laws. We don't have 'states rights'.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
28. Re:Amazing by theshowmecanuck · 2011-05-01 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say it wasn't civilized. Napoleon wanted a person to be charged only if the state had a really good case to prevent people from being thrown in jail indefinitely. The state is supposed to be able to go to trial quickly so they can't say they are keeping people while they are investigating. Common law evolved with rules to accomplish the same thing, but the idea of innocent until proven guilty doesn't in itself prevent it. A long time ago the state could come and throw you in jail while it did its investigations, even if that took a long time. That is why laws were developed so that the state generally can't hold you more than a set period of time (24, 58, 72 hours or whatever, depending on the state) before having to release you or are charged and started through the court system (which I think ends up being similar to Napoleonic law, n'est-ce pas? :).
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
29. Re:Amazing by daBass · 2011-05-01 15:39 · Score: 2
  
  When you look at the twisted mass of wreckage the flight recorder came from, finding the data unit is a miracle.
  I miracle would have been some deity appearing in the cockpit on that fateful night and telling the guys how to not get into this mess.
  Finding this flight recorder is simply a great achievement of science, technology and perseverance.
  I really wish people would stop calling great examples of human ingenuity with no evidence of divine intervention "miracles".
  "Miracle on the Hudson" my ass!
30. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  All it took was Airbus being charged by France with manslaughter over the crash. They spent the money to make a real effort to find the wreckage and black boxes this time; in an effort to get out of the charges.
  For those who don't know, France follows Napoleonic Law, not Common Law like in Britain, Canada (and most other commonwealth countries), and of course, America. In common law you are innocent until proven guilty. In Napoleonic law, they don't file charges or (generally) put you in jail until investigation convinces authorities that you are guilty (as I understand it, if murder etc. is involved, they might put you in jail while they investigate, but you won't be charged until they are convinced you are guilty). You have to prove your innocence. So basically, the government is pretty certain they will be able to convict Airbus on the manslaughter charges if they actually charged them. And thus, the search is likely in the effort to prove their innocence, not in the effort of finding the truth to ensure this type of crash doesn't happen again.
  I'm not sure if executives of a company can be put in prison for manslaughter if their company is convicted of it. Or of any other crime for that matter. If anyone knows that would be interesting to hear.
  Plain wrong. In countries which follow codified law there are many differences from common law, but not what you said.
  In fact, you are confusing criminal law with civil law. In criminal law in the codified law countries, afaik everyone is innocent till proved guilty, as it is in common law countries. A criminal lawsuit is not filed, however, till there are a minimal amount of evidence for doing so (the objective is no waste of time). One usually get arrested if caught in the middle of the fact of by Juditial order due to strong evidence and need to do so (example, to not let one continuing committing crimes).
  In civil law, however, the 'onus probandi' may change that specially in consummer law the burden of proof may belong to companies in certain situations, i.e., the defendant will have to prove he did not put in the market a defective product, nor that the accident was an equipament fault.
31. Re:Amazing by bidule · 2011-05-01 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Also not all of Canada is based up English Common Law. Quebec's laws are derived from Napoleonic Law.
  IIRC, Criminal Law is Common Law, Civil Law is French pre-Napoleonic Law.
  
  --
  ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
32. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 17:55 · Score: 0
  
  Why is this modded at +5 ?
  The parent states blatantly incorrect information about codified continental European law.
  You do not have to prove that you are innocent.
33. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  In the Napoleonic code your are innocent until proven guilty... there is no such things as what you describe in your message, you don't have to prove your innocence this is complete non sense.
  However it's true that a judge has to decide if there is enough element to go to a trial, but it doesn't result in more conviction during trial...
  In France someone who is "mis en examen" is still innocent (they changed the name from inculpation to mis en examen to make it clear).
34. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  Phew. Thank God the Americans were involved. I would have put it down as a faked recovery otherwise.
35. Re:Amazing by Chris+Mattern · 2011-05-02 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  To make the stack burn quickly. After all, the whole point of the exercise is that you don't have all day.
36. Re:Amazing by afidel · 2011-05-02 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Early harvest wheat with a high moisture content?
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
37. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  Did you just suggest to evaporate the Atlantic ocean ? :D I am sure there would be somebody to object that :D
38. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  It wouldn't matter if Napoleonic Law said that you'd have to prove your innocence. European law takes precedence, and it contradicts this. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to be precise. The European Court agrees: "The presumption of innocence requires that members of a [national] court should not start with the preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged”
39. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Funny you should mention that. It was what people used to do in the old days when nails were more valuable than timber. The Romans did it, and so did early pioneers in America.
40. Re:Amazing by wkcole · 2011-05-02 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  What is the gas for?
  Sheesh, kids these days... If you'd ever worked with hay, you'd know that a haystack is likely to be rather moist inside and that hay dry enough to burn well is not necessarily dense enough to sustain a fire in a stack. Dousing it in gasoline makes it more likely that any particular straw will burn hot enough and long enough to dry out and ignite its neighbors.
41. Re:Amazing by zippthorne · 2011-05-02 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that a stack of hay with just the right moisture content will self ignite due to retaining heat from its decay....
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
42. Re:Amazing by wkcole · 2011-05-03 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  Realize? Heck, I've seen it happen... It is more than a little disconcerting to break open a damp bale and get a "WHUMP" as the air hits hot methane inside. You can get the same sort of thing with composted yard waste or wood chips. But a spontaneous burn left to itself is a very slow smolder starting deep inside, and it is bottlenecked by lack of O2 so that it will usually self-extinguish. It's not the sort of consuming conflagration you'd want for needle-hunting.
43. Re:Amazing by AmiMoJo · 2011-05-03 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  As a humanist I very much agree. When you look at all the really awesome stuff in the world it all comes from humans, not god. Even the beauty of a flower only exists in the human mind, in the eyes of nature it is just a plant evolved to fill a certain niche and coloured brightly to attract insects.
  Life was shit before humans figured out how to farm, how to build shelters, how to make fire etc. Even if you think god did create birdsong you have to admit it isn't half as good as some of the stuff human musicians have put out.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hightlights of recovery operations by slashser · 2011-05-01 08:16 · Score: -1, Troll

Here is nice video covering the recovery operation
1. Re:Hightlights of recovery operations by webmistressrachel · 2011-05-01 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Warning: Very Graphic Gay Porn Troll Ahead!
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
maybe this is a stupid question.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:18 · Score: 0

but couldn't this information be transmitted and stored remotely?
1. Re:maybe this is a stupid question.... by vbraga · 2011-05-01 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Airbus already records remotely some telemetry data but not voice data.
  
  --
  English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
2. Re:maybe this is a stupid question.... by drolli · 2011-05-01 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  I would say: the bandwidth you need grows proportionally with the amount of data you transfer. maybe thats the reason. i imagine you can send the most important telemetry data every 10sec using a rate of 300bps but to record pilot and copilot in high quality i think you will need 100 times more. if you have to use SW or satellite, you will be limited.
3. Re:maybe this is a stupid question.... by jimicus · 2011-05-01 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention you'd need the bandwidth on the satellite system to deal with every commercial airliner in the air simultaneously.
4. Re:maybe this is a stupid question.... by AK+Marc · 2011-05-01 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  There were somewhere about 5000 flights in the air at any one time. The bandwidth for telemetry would be about 64k per aircraft (voice can be pared down to under 32k and 32k for SCADA-type telemetry would be more than sufficient). That's 320 Mbps to handle every aircraft on the planet simultaneously. It would be cheaper to set aside something for a terrestrial network for the airplanes over densely populated areas (US domestic, and other similar routes), but even without that, there are ways to do it that aren't that much on the global scale. Perhaps they could just buy Iridium and run the telemetry/voice live over that. That would be cheaper than building something similar. But the capability to serve the network over GEO satellites exists today as well, just not cheap. The recurring on it would be about a billion a month.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
5. Re:maybe this is a stupid question.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  So that comes down to about 10EUR per seat
Nice video of recovery operation by slashser1 · 2011-05-01 08:20 · Score: -1, Troll

CNBC has nice overview of the recovery operation.
1. Re:Nice video of recovery operation by webmistressrachel · 2011-05-01 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Warning: Very Graphic Gay Porn Troll Ahead!!
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
2. Re:Nice video of recovery operation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:26 · Score: -1
  
  CNBC has nice overview of the recovery operation.
  Um, not quite. That is a link to some lame-ass porn, a dude's ass I think. Difficult to tell as the browser window bounced all over my screen as I tried to close it.
  However, it could have been recorder rescue footage if the device was actually in the guy's ass... How it got there from the bottom of the ocean is perhaps worth further investigation.
3. Re:Nice video of recovery operation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Yeeeeeeeee-hah!
Why have two separate boxes? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:22 · Score: 0

Since the recorders are now digital, why have one "data" and one "voice" recorder? Why not have both recorders record voice and data. This way you only need to find one box in case of a crash.
1. Re:Why have two separate boxes? by Dunbal · 2011-05-01 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Or have two recorders that both do voice and data, to provide redundancy. But remember that the civil aviation regulation is still stuck perhaps not in the biplane era, but somewhere close.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Meh. by PPH · 2011-05-01 08:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

New car.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  They didn't need a data recorder.
  They had to have the data recorder.
BBC video of recovery operation by slashser2 · 2011-05-01 08:28 · Score: -1, Troll

Really amazing stuff
1. Re:BBC video of recovery operation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  recommend against clicking on this link. It did something funny to my browser
2. Re:BBC video of recovery operation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  You're lucky, I got a STD from watching it :(
DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK! by jimicus · 2011-05-01 08:30 · Score: 3, Informative

Do not click on above link, it's a shock video.
No mod points or I'd mod it down.
1. Re:DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  The only shocking thing is that even in 2011 people are confusing their digestive system with their reproductive system. Really, they couldn't just check an anatomy textbook online to see what hole does what? And then the light goes off in their heads: "Wait a minute, this penis thing goes in a VAGINA! Ah ha!" Then they stop, get dressed, have a beer and a good laugh. "Boy, were WE confused!" And then go find two women.
2. Re:DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  Well you gotta be using the second woman on some hole while the first is on your shaft. So yeah I could see how that mistake could be commonly made, especially in the presence of two women :D
3. Re:DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  The only shocking thing is that even in 2011 people are confusing their digestive system with their reproductive system.
  Not a fan of blow jobs, huh?
4. Re:DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Well at least I don't confuse input with output holes! ;)
Justice by Gothmolly · 2011-05-01 08:32 · Score: -1, Troll

Lets hope that the bastards at Airbus are made to pay for their crappy design.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  They'll get paid by Boeing for patent infringement when the 787 starts deep see exploration.
2. Re:Justice by dammy · 2011-05-01 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  If it ain't a Boeing, I'm not going. Less I'm flying myself, then Piper or Cessna is fine.
3. Re:Justice by Mindcontrolled · 2011-05-01 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Oh? One has information that no one else in the whole world has? Or is one just engaging in America first! RAH! RAH! BOEING! RAH! RAH! trolling?
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
4. Re:Justice by dirty_ghost · 2011-05-01 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  and more if they do deep *sea* exploration
5. Re:Justice by Gothmolly · 2011-05-01 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  The pitot tubes on that Airbus model are notoriously prone to icing. Many Air France flights have had documented hazards due to the inability of the plane to sense and maintain airspeed.
  The French government has already opened a criminal case over the crash.
  Perhaps it is YOU who should be more informed.
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
6. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Informed you say? as in real information??
  Accidents involving scheduled passenger operations:
  1945 through 2008:
  Boeing: 21.9%
  Airbus: 4.3%
  Last 5 years:
  Boeing 25.0%
  Airbus 13.8%
  DeHaviland 10.5%
  McDonnell-Douglas 8.9%
  Last 5 years, aircraft with 75 seats or more:
  Boeing 45.2%
  Airbus 25.0%
  McDonnell-Douglas 16.1%
  Tupolev 4.8%
  Fokker 4.8%
  Avro 3.0%
  Ilyushin 0.6%
  Embraer 0.6%
  Aircraft insurance industry database, last updated 1/4/09
7. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  They always open criminal cases on crashes, just in case they're not an accident.
8. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yes because they never crash.
  http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/boeing.htm
  http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/b737.htm
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWZQyRUkffk
  Never mind cessna, lol.
9. Re:Justice by pipatron · 2011-05-01 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  And of course these figures have to be normalized with regards to the number of flight-hours ecah company has. Perhaps there are more Boeing planes in the air than there are planes built by Tupolev?
  
  --
  c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
10. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  Looking at the percentages, it looks like the data isn't normalized to total travel distance etc. - i find it hard to belive that Tupolev and Ilyushin are *WAY* safer than Boeing and Airbus...
11. Re:Justice by Adam+Hazzlebank · 2011-05-01 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  There seem to be fewer Airbus aircraft than Boeing, so these numbers need normalising I guess...
  
  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_between_Airbus_and_Boeing (Deliveries summed)...
  
  Airbus 1989-2011: 6175
  Boeing 1989-2011: 9429
12. Re:Justice by richieb · 2011-05-01 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Anything that sticks out on any airplane is prone to icing. This has nothing to do with Airbus, but with simple physics.....
  
  --
  ...richie - It is a good day to code.
13. Re:Justice by Dunbal · 2011-05-01 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  Enjoy your rat-feces infested ancient Boeing planes operated by Delta. But don't pick too hard at the chewing gum under the seat because it's holding the plane together.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
CNBC has video highlights of the search operation by slashser3 · 2011-05-01 08:40 · Score: -1, Troll

Its interesting, especially the robots they have used.
Re:CNBC has video highlights of the search operati by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:44 · Score: 0

They say they run Linux and GNU/Linux.
Re:CNBC has video highlights of the search operati by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:45 · Score: 0

It would be more interesting if I had a piece of pipe and your face,
in close proximity so I could smash your face beyond recognition,
you sorry piece of shit.
DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE, IT IS MALICIOUS.
I don't get this by anomnomnomymous · 2011-05-01 08:46 · Score: 1

Does somebody know why it's so hard for them to find it? I would assume that it's properly secured against crashes, and has a GPS/transmitter on board? What causes this to be so hard?

Hmm, how about from now on they'll just box an iPhone; then at least you know for sure that the location is known ;-)

--
When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
1. Re:I don't get this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  do gps transmitters work well on the ocean floor?
2. Re:I don't get this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Does somebody know why it's so hard for them to find it? I would assume that it's properly secured against crashes, and has a GPS/transmitter on board? What causes this to be so hard?
  Hmm, how about from now on they'll just box an iPhone; then at least you know for sure that the location is known ;-)
  And how do you propose the transmitter transmitting through hundreds of meters of conductive sea water?
3. Re:I don't get this by 0123456 · 2011-05-01 08:57 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Does somebody know why it's so hard for them to find it? I would assume that it's properly secured against crashes, and has a GPS/transmitter on board? What causes this to be so hard?
  Inside the data recorder it's attached to a pinger which sends out a sound pulse on a regular basis for about a month after a crash; that makes it easy to find if the recorder stays intact and it's in relatively shallow water, but in this case it's so far down that the pinger was barely audible during the first search (it wasn't detected during the search and only found by post-search processing of the recorded audio data) and the various layers in the ocean reflect sound so it's hard to track. Obviously the batteries died long ago so the only way to find it now was to look for an orange cylinder on the seabed.
4. Re:I don't get this by BronsCon · 2011-05-01 09:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Got a GPS?
  Good.
  Now, go jump in a lake with it.
  Where are you? What? No GPS lock? Oh, that's ok, it still transmits its last known coordinates and you shouldn't be too far from there; I'll just use that signal. Oh... wait, there's no signal. Hmm, that LARGE BODY OF WATER must be blocking it.
  No bother, anyway, those coordinates would only be accurate enough to tell me you're at the crash site; something I already know.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
5. Re:I don't get this by xlsior · 2011-05-01 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Does somebody know why it's so hard for them to find it? I would assume that it's properly secured against crashes, and has a GPS/transmitter on board? What causes this to be so hard?
  
  Yes, supposedly it was broadcasting at first -- but you are talking about an incredibly weak signal under 2.5 miles of ocean... Let alone that it can get an accurate GPS lock under water, and you probably have a significant amount of drift during that 2.5 mile descent
  
  Then the additional problem is that the emergency batteries would have run out after a few weeks, so after that time-frame passed it became even more difficult to locate.
  
  Personally, I find it amazing they were able to locate it at all given the difficulties involved.
  
  In my mind the best solution would be to have all data+voice streamed real-time from the airplane to an external source by satellite for the entire flight, so you don't have to depend on locating the black box at all to determine what happened... But from what I've read, the problem there is pilot unions objecting to being recorded and 'monitored' all day long.
6. Re:I don't get this by 0123456 · 2011-05-01 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  In my mind the best solution would be to have all data+voice streamed real-time from the airplane to an external source by satellite for the entire flight, so you don't have to depend on locating the black box at all to determine what happened... But from what I've read, the problem there is pilot unions objecting to being recorded and 'monitored' all day long.
  No, the problem is that you'd have to spend about $10,000,000,000 to set up such a system and hunting for a recorder on the bottom of the Atlantic every few years is much cheaper.
7. Re:I don't get this by e9th · 2011-05-01 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  But the recorder is emitting an acoustic ping, which travels nicely through water.
8. Re:I don't get this by BronsCon · 2011-05-01 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Which isn't the point the post I was replying to was trying to make, thus why I didn't mention it.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
9. Re:I don't get this by e9th · 2011-05-01 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I read "GPS/transmitter" as "GPS or other transmitter", as opposed to the unambiguous "GPS transmitter". But I see your point.
10. Re:I don't get this by BronsCon · 2011-05-01 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, the audible ping wasn't so helpful, either. LED's are cheap, bright, and probably use a lot less power than the buzzer element that makes the ping, I'm left wondering why the damn thing doesn't just flash.
  Flash... Memory... Get it?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
11. Re:I don't get this by John+Hasler · 2011-05-01 10:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you're close enough to see a flashing LED you're close enough to see the wreckage. The ping is audible (with the right equipment) through thousands of feet of muddy water. Sound travels farther than light in the ocean.
  
  --
  Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
12. Re:I don't get this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  "Yes, supposedly it was broadcasting at first"
  Then there is the problem that GPS receivers(!) don't transmit at all.
13. Re:I don't get this by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2011-05-01 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  But sound travels MUCH farther underwater than light will...
  
  --
  Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
14. Re:I don't get this by e9th · 2011-05-01 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  I guess the question is, for a desired longevity of signal and power source, what method provides the greater chance of detection? Which, I think, boils down to how much power does it take to generate a flash or ping that can be seen or heard for whatever distance seems right for a flight data recorder.
  
  Deep underwater, I think sound is probably better. Above ground, flashing or RF, definitely.
15. Re:I don't get this by dkf · 2011-05-01 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  The ping is audible (with the right equipment) through thousands of feet of muddy water.
  Which is OK until the battery powering the ping runs flat. In water that deep, that's just what you've got to put up with (unless you use something like a RTG, which isn't something I'm too happy with putting in planes as a matter of course, even if it is in a part that's supposed to survive any crash...)
  Actually finding the data recorder is impressive stuff, however you cut it. Here's hoping they manage to locate the voice recorder too.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
16. Re:I don't get this by LWATCDR · 2011-05-01 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Ummm. Yea you don't
  1. It is the size of a breadbox.
  2. Sank into the ocean.
  3. It had a few KM of water column to sink through with currents.
  4. I doubt that the aircraft was sending it's postion in realtime all the way to impact. So it had a few KMs of air column to "fall through" with a pretty high rate of forward motion.
  5. Just incase you didn't know water blocks radio except for ELF. ELF requires a trailing antenna that is a few KMs long usually. Not really practical for a fight recorders.
  6. GPS doesn't use ELF so once it was in the water not more positon data.
  7. What are you doing on Slashdot? Turn in your nerd card on the way out.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
17. Re:I don't get this by Dunbal · 2011-05-01 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Let alone that it can get an accurate GPS lock under water
  I would think that it can't get any sort of GPS lock at all when under water. The red side of the spectrum is the first one to go - guess which end of the spectrum radio waves are on.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
18. Re:I don't get this by Solandri · 2011-05-01 13:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Now, go jump in a lake with it.
  
  Where are you? What? No GPS lock?
  
  During an underwater robotics conference I attended, one of the presenters was describing their attempt at using GPS for location fixes every time their autonomous underwater vehicle surfaced in the ocean. They ended up trashing the idea because they found that as little 5 mm of seawater on top of the GPS antenna would prevent a GPS lock.
19. Re:I don't get this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 13:27 · Score: 0
  
  In my mind the best solution would be to have all data+voice streamed real-time from the airplane to an external source by satellite for the entire flight, so you don't have to depend on locating the black box at all to determine what happened...
  And then something goes wrong and the plane is unable to transmit. 10 minutes later it crashes into the ocean, and the transmitted data don't show anything unusual. Then what?
20. Re:I don't get this by fnj · 2011-05-01 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  go jump in a lake
  Darwin can only wish.
21. Re:I don't get this by fnj · 2011-05-01 14:19 · Score: 2
  
  That's funny. An intelligently designed autonomous underwater vehicle seems to have no trouble getting GPS fixes when surfaced.
22. Re:I don't get this by sjames · 2011-05-01 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Small box in a very large ocean. Small box has experienced forces strong enough to tear a jetliner into tiny pieces. Then it sank. GPS doesn't work under water. Radio transmissions under water don't make it to the surface.
  What's amazing is that they DID find it.
23. Re:I don't get this by RockDoctor · 2011-05-01 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  ... if it's of the right frequency range. (And I think that it's temperature dependant too.)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Perhaps it was stolen? by Mr_Donnie · 2011-05-01 08:48 · Score: 1

Stolen by sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads!
Amazing technology by InterBigs · 2011-05-01 08:52 · Score: 1

The fact that they found this box on the bottom of the Atlantic long after it's beacon died out and the fact that it's in good shape is just amazing. Let's hope they can figure out what happened.
Thanks for the food, was yammy... by slashser3 · 2011-05-01 08:52 · Score: -1

Your comment won the award of beeing included in my troll food comment list.
Here it is:

"Ugh. Goatse. NSFW. Asshole (poster and picture, both)."
"i WAS eating lunch you ass!"
"I hope you die in a fire before you are old enough to contaminate the gene pool."
"You're a fucking douchbag." - "That is the most accurate comment yet"
"Thanks, I'm reading slashdot in class like a good student and just got tubgirl'd."
"Can someone make a fucking goatse blocker firefox plugin please? This is pissing me off now."
"Seriously ... new account to post that ... what a douche!"
"Asshole... Ginormous asshole, in fact."
"Better than you, you arse bandit."
"you fucker" - "I had the same thought as you. What a fucking asshole. The link is nsfw."
"mod to -1, please. this guy is an 'asshole'.... (yes, you guessed it)"
"Ugh. Goatse. You asshole."
"Really? Are you not tired of this yet?"
"Posting your picture online again?"
"I did not even bother to look, but this same idiot has been doing this for weeks now. Fuck off asshole."
"fuck you."

"Doh! One has to also recognize data urls. *sigh*"
"Oh dear god my eyes. Haven't seen THAT awful image in a while."
"my eyes are burning... argh! Damn you!"
"MY EYES... dude i am at work here "S "

"Why the sudden coordinated campaign for Goatse? Is someone making money off this?"
"You're right, this is the most coordinated troll campaign in a long time. Multiple accounts, multiple pages."
"Urgh...dammit, am I the only one thinking the goatse trolls are getting worse lately than they have been in the past five
"Who found a way to monetize goatse at this late date? If we got half the effort of that campaign on real stuff we'd all have better software by now."
"Boy Goatsex is out in force today... - Every topic is littered with them..."

"I am sick and tired of that crap on /. "
"Could not someone at slashdot write a small script to blacklist url's that have been flagged troll? I'll do it if you pay me a slave wage..."
"Parent should be modded down. Link is NSFW and mentally scarring."
"Argh. Goatse alert..."
"Grow up"
"just post the damn url, i'm not going to click on a tinyurl link and get goatse'd or something.."
"Don't click the link! Goatse wannabe."
"Goatse URL - Haven't seen that guy in a while"
"Someone please mod this guy down... Don't click his link."
"I tried to post warnings about the goaste loving jerk yesterday but was modded into oblivion as a karma whore"
"can we start banning people who post that hiding it behind a url shortening link like goo.gl?"
"didn't click it, but the magic 8-ball says goatse."
"you are one dedicated troll."
"Well played, sir. Well played."
"A link that redirects to a page containing goatse? How clever of you!"
"Congrats. It's been a long time since I saw goatse."

"That's somewhat clever, but some of us do know what base-64 encoding is."

It's a wiki, for god's sake, couldn't you have deleted the image ref?
I didn't know it was a wiki for all the goatse i was getting around my family
Stop giving the troll lulz! It's like a catnip to them!

"You c*nt"
"You fucking piece of shit!"

"It would be more interesting if I had a piece of pipe and your face, in close proximity so I could smash your face beyond recognition,
you sorry piece of shit."
"You can't actually expect the Slashdot users to actually know enough not to respond to a goatse troll, right ?"
gps? on the ocean floor? by circletimessquare · 2011-05-01 08:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

turn in your nerd credentials for thinking that would work
additionally, flight data recorders do send out a ping for 30 days:
http://boingboing.net/2009/06/03/miles-obrien-bloggin.html

The submersible will be listening for the distinctive "pinging" noise that these boxes are designed to emit once they are submerged in water. They are supposed to "ping" for thirty days in water as deep as 20,000 feet. Sonar used by surface ships is only good to about a thousand feet of depth - so it is essential to send some "ears" deep beneath the sea in order to find the boxes. These sonar devices can be towed by ships or ply the deep on their own power.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by zensonic · 2011-05-01 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  What about making the container so that it is able to float? Should be a matter of making the container airtight and creating enough uplift.
  
  --
  Thomas S. Iversen
2. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you want it to float away from the wreckage?
  Also, its really dense (as it needs to be strong to withstand the forces of crashing). It would require a huge amount of flotation material to get it to float.
3. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by Christian+Smith · 2011-05-01 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  While also being securely attached to the airframe? Airframe sinks, that's a big flotation device required.
4. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by dominious · 2011-05-01 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you want it to float away from the wreckage?
  So then it can use GPS?
  
  It would require a huge amount of flotation material to get it to float.
  How about a balloon that will eject from the inside and inflate automatically with compressed air?
5. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by zensonic · 2011-05-01 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Trying to solve one problem at the time ;-)
  This problem was a device burried at the oceanic floorbed that took 2+ years to recover. The 'i am here' distress signal consists of 30 days worth of 'pings' that in itself requires a probe far down to be able to hear the pings.
  But you are right, if it is bolted to the airframe, then a big flotation device is required.
  
  --
  Thomas S. Iversen
6. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by 0123456 · 2011-05-01 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  How about a balloon that will eject from the inside and inflate automatically with compressed air?
  That would probably work, but you'd have to ensure that it separated from the wreckage, and then that you found it before the balloon deflated. If it goes to the seabed with the wreckage, then you can find it by finding the rest of the plane, which is relatively easy to spot because of its size. If the flight recorder floats at sea for a month and then sinks to the seabed you'll never find it because it's small and could be thousands of miles from the crash site.
7. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by jd · 2011-05-01 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Then it would drift, making it harder to find. Having it sink means less chance of ocean currents pulling it. The ideal would be to have the container capable of anchoring itself if totally detached from the airframe.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
8. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by JamesP · 2011-05-01 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, about that
  They didn't find the Underwater Locator Beacon attached to the memory unit.
  So it may have been torn apart/damaged during impact
  Besides, it's a poor system. I mean, they never got any signal from them, but they had several confusing signals.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
9. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by jd · 2011-05-01 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the airframe. If instead of a tissue-thick aluminium airframe you had something better able to absorb the shock of impact, you should be fine. Your only requirement is that the mass of water displaced by a largely-intact airframe exceeds the mass of that airframe. Well, after making an airframe capable of plunging 20,000 feet into storm-churned ocean waters without disintegrating either on the way down or when it hits the water.
  (This isn't impossible. If the wings and tail are designed to break away cleanly instead of ripping, what you have left is a rather large and populated javelin. So long as it is strong lengthwise, you should be fine. Replace the curtains between sections with a graphene bulkhead and even the total obliteration of every section up to the compartment housing the black boxes would not impact the buoyancy of the section of interest.)
  Having said that, redundant black boxes on an aircraft would seem the better strategy. Finding the recorders seems to be less of a problem than extreme damage. The quality of information obtainable is also suspect. Again, if necessary, add more recorders. If the top-level Airbus can sport swimming pools, it can sport additional diagnostic and monitoring systems. The more data collected in any given accident, the more flaws can be fixed at the same time, the less likely catastrophic accidents are likely to happen.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
10. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by camperdave · 2011-05-01 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  You could attach it with water soluble adhesives.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
11. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by PsychoSlashDot · 2011-05-01 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you want it to float away from the wreckage?
  So then it can use GPS?
  Honest question... why do you want the Flight Data Recorder to use GPS? It knows perfectly well where it is. It's us that don't know where it is. My understanding is that in GPS, it's the satellites that do the transmitting.
  Regardless, KISS seriously applies here. A FDR is intended to be massively robust not feature-laden. And so it should be. Less variables in locating it is a Good Thing. Recovery specialists don't need to wonder "did it float away and the transmitter failed or is it laying on the ocean floor because the balloon didn't inflate?" While recovery in wreckage at the ocean-bottom is difficult, it's simple in the sense of having relatively few variables involved.
  What I wouldn't mind seeing is a set of a half-dozen recorders scattered throughout an aircraft. You know... redundancy.
  
  --
  "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
12. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by fimbulvetr · 2011-05-01 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking it could grip it by the husk.
13. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by RockDoctor · 2011-05-01 21:48 · Score: 1
  You could attach it with water soluble adhesives.
  Scenario:
  
  Your idea is implemented (rolling programme of replacement, takes a while);
  A plane flies through the rain and is not perfectly maintained ; it leaks. (Alternatively, someone spills something in the appropriate areas ; whatever.)
  Glues degrade and eventually fail.
  Depending on detailed design, the FDR falls out of the plane in mid-flight, killing people on the ground, or falls out when it's inspection hatch is opened by a highly-trained service technician.
  Police break down your door and drag you away for execution, as it was your idea.
  Nope, I don't see any downsides.
  Aircraft are well-engineered structures (I hope). So in principle you want something that isn't going to separate from it's mounting points until it's subjected to loads that are going to rip apart the rest of the surrounding airframe. Which should be reasonably achievable (to within a factor of 2) using pre-drilled mounting bolts for example.
  However, your idea still has the problem of now leaving the data recorder bobbing around on the surface of the sea or on the seabed (at very low effective weight, because of properly configured and engineered buoyancy) in the immediate aftermath of the crash, then drifting away. Possibly days before any surface SAR vessels get there.
  Oh, don't forget too, that different countries have different regulations about what FDR capabilities (in terms of data collected, length of storage before over-writing, and crash survivability) the airlines under their flags, which don't inherently affect the airplane's safety. So look forward to tieing things up in the courts for decades trying to apply this extraterritoriarily.
  Then there's the minor detail that FDRs are manufactured in a small range of sizes for a wider range of planes, by a range of companies who are not aircraft manufacturers themselves.
  TBH ; the idea is a mess. A well-meaning mess, but a mess nonetheless. I'd suspect that for new build, automatic streaming of data off to a satellite communication system (as this plane appears to have had, to some degree) would be the route to take. But that only affects new build, and there is a lot of installed base out there.
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
14. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by tlhIngan · 2011-05-02 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, don't forget too, that different countries have different regulations about what FDR capabilities (in terms of data collected, length of storage before over-writing, and crash survivability) the airlines under their flags, which don't inherently affect the airplane's safety. So look forward to tieing things up in the courts for decades trying to apply this extraterritoriarily.
  That's what ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) is for. It's something they can mandate the minimums for. The countries participating in ICAO have to pass laws that implement it, and can easily demand that aircraft flying through their airspace must follow all ICAO rules.
  Flags of convenience aren't a huge thing for aircraft as they are for boats. Most American airlines, for example, will have standard N-numbers assigned to them, as would most airlines of the world would tend to have their aircraft callsigns from their base location. (ICAO hands out the country groupings, e.g, C-Fxxx and C-Gxxx are Canadian aircraft).
15. Re:gps? on the ocean floor? by RockDoctor · 2011-05-02 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's what ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) is for. It's something they can mandate the minimums for. The countries participating in ICAO have to pass laws that implement it, and can easily demand that aircraft flying through their airspace must follow all ICAO rules.
  And in my (not very long) quest to find the details of the ICAO rules, I find that the rules seem to have been (are to be) changed in 1987, 1989, 1991, 2005, 2010 and 2012.
  But, you mention the situation for American air operators (I assume that is where you fly, if you fly at all) ; of course, they're required to follow FAA rules on the matter, not ICAO. So for each of the implementation dates above, you can expect another FAA date, probably a year or so later.
  I do have some sympathy for the people who have to administer these things. Having lost flying for about 10 days out of a 21-day work "cycle" to flying rule changes already this year, I also have some sympathy for the poor schmucks trying to get home after work as well.
  Actually, it sounds as if the newer planes in the fleet do have more standardised buses for data management, which would suggest that the situation for new build is simplifying. So in another 3 to 4 decades, it might be an improved system. Somehow I don't find that terribly encouraging - I hope to have finished flying by then.
  
  Flags of convenience aren't a huge thing for aircraft as they are for boats.
  Yet.
  Do you think that planes that are becoming too expensive for running in high-compliance companies get broken for parts and scrap, or get sold onto lower-compliance countries? Uh-huh ; you got it : Sold on (mostly). And it's always been like that. There are plenty of air crashes in which equipment failure is a significant issue. This may not worry you in your home country, but I don't restrict myself to one continent for work, and it does worry me. I'm over 5 years overdue for a major flight incident, and it's really starting to make my ring twitch every time I get off the ground.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
No radio/GPS under water by dutchwhizzman · 2011-05-01 08:58 · Score: 1

Because it was 4km under water and radio transmission and reception don't work there? You can't get GPS signals and radio beacons don't work there. Even if you could, the batteries won't last the months it took them to get a ROV there to pick it up.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Re:CNBC has video highlights of the search operati by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:15 · Score: 0

It's not malicious, you dumb motherfucker. It's gay, though.
Euro is both singular and plural! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:16 · Score: 1

I was in Dublin, Ireland, when the Euro currency came in.
Due to the different ways each European language handles plurals, it was decided not to have a different word for the plural. This was emphasised in the conversion literature.
So half of 7 Euro would be 3 Euro 50 cent.
1. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by Richy_T · 2011-05-01 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But this is the English language. Not only will we add an "s", we might even throw in an apostrophe or two for good measure.
2. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  It was decided? Common usage is now euros, in English, so... eventually the literature will have to change.
  In situations where "euros" would be translated in text, the rest would have to be translated too, so one word is negligible. In the symbolic case, there is no need to translate.
3. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by jd · 2011-05-01 10:15 · Score: 2
  
  Only if you're a grocer.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
4. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by moonbender · 2011-05-01 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Huh. I never recognized how that might be weird for English native speakers. English has "regular" count nouns and mass nouns (like water, which you can't use with a numeral *five waters). German has those, and an additional "countable mass noun" category, also used for other units like pound. You could still say "10 Euros", but you'd be referring to ten individual coins. I can't come up with any noun in English that acts quite the same way, though there are examples in English that don't fit into the count noun/mass noun distinction, either.
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
5. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by Kittenman · 2011-05-01 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  I can't come up with any noun in English that acts quite the same way, though there are examples in English that don't fit into the count noun/mass noun distinction, either.
  Sheep. One sheep. Ten sheep.
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
6. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by PNutts · 2011-05-01 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Like with my first wife: I would say "toe-MAY-toe" and she would say "Oh shut the fuck up."
7. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by moonbender · 2011-05-01 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sheep is usually analysed as being a count noun with an identical plural and singular form. What I am looking for is a noun that has a single form which can be used in both a singular and plural context (like sheep), but which also has a plural form with an additional/different meaning used in exceptional (ie. unusual/rare) situations. It really makes most sense with units, imagine someone saying "bring me 4 litres of water" to stress that they want 4 individual one litre bottles as opposed to a one gallon jug or two 2 litre jugs. Funnily enough that example doesn't even work in German, as litre/Liter doesn't even have a plural form in German; but the point stands.
  What English does have is mass nouns with exceptional plurals. You usually treat sand as a mass noun: "a pile of sand" (singular), as opposed to "a pile of sticks" (plural); but in unusual cases it's possible to refer to the "sands of time" or "the behaviour of two sands" (which is technical jargon). With these, you can't use a numeral with the singular form, however; so "give me five sand" is impossible, while "give me five Euro" is fine.
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
8. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by mirix · 2011-05-01 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  deer, elk, moose, buffalo, bison, beer [in canada, generally but not always], fish.
  There are a bunch more but I can't seem to think of many non-animal ones. :-)
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
9. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by moonbender · 2011-05-01 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm aware of those, but they're really not what I'm looking for. See my reply to your sibling who pointed out "sheep".
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
10. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by wagnerrp · 2011-05-01 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  we might even throw in an apostrophe or two for good measure.
  Pretty sure that's not the English language, but just wrong.
11. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by mirix · 2011-05-01 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  You can eat one fish, or you can eat two fish. However you can eat several different types of fishes. I think that works?
  Or am I missing it...
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
12. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by fbjon · 2011-05-01 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  What I am looking for is a noun that has a single form which can be used in both a singular and plural context (like sheep)
  People/peoples?
  
  --
  True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
13. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by Rob+the+Bold · 2011-05-01 14:22 · Score: 2
  
  But this is the English language. Not only will we add an "s", we might even throw in an apostrophe or two for good measure.
  I'd give you a bonus "e" for no extra charge!
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
14. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by moonbender · 2011-05-01 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe. Bizarrely, you would say "I met two people" to refer to two individuals, and "two peoples" to refer to "tribes", so you'd think the plural has that second meaning. However, if you use the word with a singular numeral "we are one people", you're using a singular word form with the "tribal" meaning. Referring to an individual using "people" would seem to be impossible (unlike "one Euro").
  Incredible what language users have to put up with. :)
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
15. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by moonbender · 2011-05-01 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty close. It's different in that I don't think "fishes" can combine with a numeral, so you don't have a difference in meaning in an otherwise identical environment. "He ate two fishes" sounds wrong to me, while I'd accept "several types of fishes" (though I'd still be more comfortable with "several types of fish"). However I can well imagine some people feeling fine with "two fishes".
  Odd that it seems to work better with fish(es) than other mass noun animals. "Several types of sheeps" just doesn't work.
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
16. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by sartin · 2011-05-02 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I think "fish" might fit the bill: One fish, two fish, all the fishes in the sea
17. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by Chris+Mattern · 2011-05-02 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  You can eat one fish, or you can eat two fish.
  You can eat red fish, or you can eat blue fish.
18. Re:Euro is both singular and plural! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  How about chocolate? She was swimming in chocolates. Please give me three chocolates.
Can't they read? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:21 · Score: 0

In the first photo, what does it say on the cylinder? It looks very much like "DO NOT OPEN". They should just put it back where they found it. Remember Pandora?
Now they're looking for the voice recorder? by kabloom · 2011-05-01 09:42 · Score: 1

Why don't they put the voice recorder in the same box, that way if you find one you find them both? For that matter, why don't they put two identical black boxes in the plane, that way searchers have a higher chance of finding at least one of them?
1. Re:Now they're looking for the voice recorder? by Platinum+Dragon · 2011-05-01 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  The voice recorder may be completely destroyed. Keeping them separate decreases the possibility that a single force or impact will destroy both units.
  Same reason enterprise IT departments (should) maintain multiple, separate backups of critical data.
  
  --
  
  Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
2. Re:Now they're looking for the voice recorder? by Belial6 · 2011-05-01 12:45 · Score: 0
  
  They could put two black boxes that store both the data and the voice then. If you have a box that can store both, you might as well. If you already have two boxes that can store both, you might as well.
  
  Of course, they could have the two black boxes, and then put 200 light waight memory device throughout the plane. The cost would be minimal, and then if you could find any significant part of the plane, you would have a high chance of finding an in tact memory module. I say keep the existing black boxes because if none of the cheap light weight memory modules survived, we would get "I told you so's."
Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by MarkTina · 2011-05-01 09:48 · Score: 2

Why if you have 2 flight recorders do they not have the voice replicate to the data and the data to the voice ... that way it you find one you have the complete data set.
I know "crazy talk" but I'm a storage bod and it irks me when people lose VERY important data!
1. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-01 10:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Development cycles in Aviation are very long. Technology used is generally very old but well proven. Both recorders are probably jam packed with data with no room to spare and no free space to double up. The newer systems being designed will transmit the data which would now be recorded so it won't have to be scraped off the bottom of the Atlantic.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by JamesP · 2011-05-01 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I've heard they are thinking of something like that.
  But still, that recorder stores around 36Mb of memory.
  Of course, the technology for redundant recording of sufficient data is only available for around 10 years now (or maybe less). Remember how USB sticks were around 64Mb in 2004?
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
3. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by FlyingGuy · 2011-05-01 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  My Guess is... A CVR ( Cockpit Voice Recorders) is on a 30 minute cycle. Write to the end of the (tape ( continuous loop ) / memory module ) reset your pointer back to the begging and start recording over the 30 minute data chuck.
  Now these days you could put a terabyte of flash in the things an record hundreds of hours, put the pilots have managed to ensure that only ( last I knew ) 30 minutes is recorded. Additionally in the cockpit there is/ used to be a button labeled CVR Erase which after pulling up to the gate pilots would press because they didn't want chats about their g/f's getting out to their wives.
  I am not sure what the cycle time on the ADR ( airplane data recorder ) is but I would imaging it auto erases after it is downloaded by the operator.
  
  --
  Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
4. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by jd · 2011-05-01 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  The individual recorders don't have the capacity. Instead, have twice the number of recorders so that both types of data get mirrored. If the backup recorders are as far from the originals as possible, then if the damage wrecks one set there's a good chance the other set will be intact. (The plane is unlikely to break such that two diametrically opposite parts of the plane will impact the ground or water with equal severity.)
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
5. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by syousef · 2011-05-01 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Additionally in the cockpit there is/ used to be a button labeled CVR Erase which after pulling up to the gate pilots would press because they didn't want chats about their g/f's getting out to their wives.
  Or in some cases chatting TO their girlfriends...
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1180864/Chilling-recordings-reveal-moments-doomed-Buffalo-flight-killed-50.html
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
6. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by ben_kelley · 2011-05-01 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  The plane is unlikely to break such that two diametrically opposite parts of the plane will impact the ground or water with equal severity.
  That would be a fun Mythbusters episode.
7. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by camperdave · 2011-05-01 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Supposedly they found the flight data recorder the other day, but the data module was missing. So I have to wonder, if the data is stored in an external module, in what way was the flight data recorder a flight data recorder?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
8. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by petermgreen · 2011-05-01 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC the data module was part of the data recorder but the recorder was sufficiantly damaged that it became separated.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
9. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by jd · 2011-05-01 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  Boeing has purposefully destroyed a number of aircraft in various PR stunts (such as demonstrating a non-exploding fuel), so it is possible they would be willing to provide the Mythbusters crew with an older 737 or somesuch.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
10. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 17:24 · Score: 0
  
  For durability, they use old-fashioned low-density storage. This is to make it very damage resistant. But it also very badly limits the data that can be stored. If you duplicated the data between the boxes, you'd end up with half as long a voice recording, and half as much flight data.
11. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by RockDoctor · 2011-05-01 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  Adam to Jamie : "We're going to need a bigger bomb range."
  Jamie to Adam : "If in doubt, C4"
  In other news, property prices near airfields and bomb ranges in the San Francisco area crash and burn.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
12. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by coofercat · 2011-05-02 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  I know "crazy talk" but I'm a storage jbod and it irks me when people lose VERY important data!
  Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
13. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by Stupendoussteve · 2011-05-02 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  Gah that article refers to it as an engine stall... giant pet peeve of mine when news-media talks about "stalls" on airplanes. They always say it's the engine, and it's not. Engine can be working great, a wing is the thing that stalls when it stops producing enough lift.
  But I digress...
14. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by AmiMoJo · 2011-05-03 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you can find one you can usually find the other. They are both kept in the tail of the aircraft because that is where they are most likely to survive a crash, so even when they sink a long way they don't usually get separated that much. In theory the beacons will lead you to them both but the batteries only last a month.
  I am somewhat surprised that they don't make them float.
  A bigger problem IMHO is that because they use the aircraft's power to record and are connected to the cockpit microphones and instruments via a cable to the back of the aircraft they stop working if either the electrics fail or the cable is severed.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
15. Re:Why not replicate the recorders to each other ? by MarkTina · 2011-05-04 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  hehehehe :-)
  That appealed to my sense of humor!
Why is it news that it was found in the Atlantic? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 09:56 · Score: 0

That's where the plane went down.
Now, if it had been found in the Pacific or Indian Oceans, or if Jimmy Hoffa or D. B. Cooper were found along with it, that'd be news.
Not the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 10:00 · Score: 0

This is a hoax.
As anyone can see, the supposed "boîte noire" is instead "rouge". Probably planted there by Air France and Airbus with convenient data to exonerate themselves of the crash.
1. Re:Not the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  This is a hoax.
  As anyone can see, the supposed "boîte noire" is instead "rouge".
  Not really, so-called "Black" box flight recorders are normally bright orange (or yellow, apparently).
Interesting by SuperTechnoNerd · 2011-05-01 10:03 · Score: 1

Interesting that this was attached to the main unit with 4 bolts which sheared off..
1. Re:Interesting by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-01 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  But its intact. You don't want to get four intact bolts and one wrecked recorder.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by NicknamesAreStupid · 2011-05-01 10:17 · Score: 1

Planes can transmit "in real time" much more information than what they record by using the same satellites used for those fancy global radio phones. That way, everything is captured at the moment it happens, including coordinates, which makes the plane easier to find.
1. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  Why not have gas helium on board so when the planes definitely going to go down, all passengers can use their helium balloon to fall to safety.
2. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  Planes can transmit "in real time" much more information than what they record by using the same satellites used for those fancy global radio phones. That way, everything is captured at the moment it happens, including coordinates, which makes the plane easier to find.
  Indeed -- something like ACARS you mean? i.e. the system which relayed AF447's position, and which was also transmitting diagnostic data. wiki
3. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Planes can transmit "in real time" much more information than what they record by using the same satellites used for those fancy global radio phones. That way, everything is captured at the moment it happens, including coordinates, which makes the plane easier to find.
  Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I just got stupider by reading what you wrote.
4. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by AC-x · 2011-05-01 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Planes can transmit "in real time" much more information than what they record by using the same satellites used for those fancy global radio phones
  What nonsense, sat phones are limited to a couple of hundred kbps while modern data recorders can record megabits per second. I doubt the sat phone system as a whole could handle the thousands of planes flying at any one time constantly streaming data at anywhere near full speed either.
  What would be practical, and something I've seen in articles about the Air France crash, is streaming a few basic flight parameters so that if the data recorders can't be recovered there is at least some data that can be used.
5. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by jepaton · 2011-05-01 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  An even better solution would be a physical recorder on the aircraft and transmission of that data from the aircraft. In this way the information will be protected from either loss of the physical recorder, problems that affect the transmission equipment (e.g. aircraft damage in the region of the antenna) or problems with the ground stations. Also, the volume of data that could be logged on a physical recorder could exceed what could be reasonably transmitted continuously (because it might not possible to transmit anything after the fact).
6. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by slyborg · 2011-05-01 11:32 · Score: 2
  
  What happens if (I know this never happens in real life, LOL) but hypothetically, what happens if something interrupts the communication from the plane, say for example when it is upside-down in a raging thunderstorm plunging towards the ocean surface?
  You would still need a backup flight recorder. The advantage of the inflight system is that you might obviate having to find wreckage in a case like the Air France flight, but in exchange you would have to be constantly storing telemetry data from thousands of commercial flights a day; this would cost more on a yearly basis than spending $20M to send bots to the ocean floor for the once in a generation crash like this.
7. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by LWATCDR · 2011-05-01 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well over the ocean you would have to use sat phone like tech like iridium which is not fast enough for all the data that a flight recorder keeps. Add in that Aircraft tech takes forever to certify and tends to be used for decades at a time. Global satellites like Iridium are actually still a bit on the new side the network may not be here in 20 years. If a plane starts to tumble or other issues it could stop sending data long before the crash, and finally what about sunspots or other solar events that cause issues with sat coms? In addition to and not a replacement for is a really good idea.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
8. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by LanMan04 · 2011-05-02 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Planes can transmit "in real time" much more information than what they record by using the same satellites used for those fancy global radio phones. That way, everything is captured at the moment it happens, including coordinates, which makes the plane easier to find.
  Yeah really, haven't these guys heard of a remote syslog server?
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
9. Re:Flight Recorders are Sooo 20th Century by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Why? when the plane lands safely, you aren't going to need the streamed data for anything other than lawsuits. simply purge old files?
Redundant Storage on Airliners by BoRegardless · 2011-05-01 10:21 · Score: 1

Something tells me the world airline safety experts are already debating the update of recorders to offer redundant multiple storage of ALL data from a plane in case of a crash.
Given the nature of storage density these days, I really doubt it would cost much more or take up much more room to have redundant storage. It would seem to require primarily a couple extra cables and connectors.
1. Re:Redundant Storage on Airliners by FlyingGuy · 2011-05-01 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  It is politics and pilots. Of course they could, see my post earlier about this.
  
  --
  Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Re:CNBC has video highlights of the search operati by scrib · 2011-05-01 10:40 · Score: 1

How many of the previous identical links marked as trolls did you have to ignore to click this one?
Never, NEVER click a link-shortener in slashdot.

--
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
What about 9/11 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 10:41 · Score: 0

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that they only found one out of the four flight recorders on 9/11? So where did the other three go? Did they just disintegrate due to the 'deadly inferno' that was spewing BLACK (oxyget starved) smoke?
Flight Recorder by gpoau · 2011-05-01 10:56 · Score: 1

After all said its still an amazing feat.

--
[URL=http://www.grouppurchaseonline.com.au]Group Purchase Online[/URL]
I get this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 11:02 · Score: 0

You should have also pointed out that the flight recorded busted open during the crash and the tiny memory stick inside, being dislodged, was flung into the abyss. And, that is why a transmitter in this case could only point them to the general area to search, and why this ended up being so difficult. And, thanks for pointing out that they ping, pretty cool. I hope this sums everything up for the parent.
Mythbusters did it by mangu · 2011-05-01 11:13 · Score: 1

They also used some needles made of bone, so the magnet was useless. Dunking in water did the trick, hay floats bone sinks.
Not really by SuperBanana · 2011-05-01 11:20 · Score: 1

The recorder has pingers in it, and even if they go dead, sidescan sonar makes it little more than a matter of time.

--
Please help metamoderate.
1. Re:Not really by Gazoogleheimer · 2011-05-01 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  The pingers have long been dead. They have a battery life on the order of days.
2. Re:Not really by Luckyo · 2011-05-01 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Requirement on black box pingers life time is at least several weeks iirc. This is why they searched for quite a long time on the first time, and intensified the search towards end-of-life of pingers.
3. Re:Not really by Solandri · 2011-05-01 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  The recorder has pingers in it, and even if they go dead, sidescan sonar makes it little more than a matter of time.
  You're vastly overestimating the effectiveness of sidescan sonar. The CSMU is about 5" in diameter and 9" long. If the longer dimension generated a 1 pixel wide sonar return, a 1x1 km search area would be 1 pixel among 19 million. The search area for AF447 ranged from about 250 to 2000 sq km. 1 pixel mixed in with numerous other 1 pixel returns from rocks, trash, debris, etc. (if you've ever seen sidescan sonar images, they're hardly clean, and frequently take an expert to interpret since you can get returns and reflections from a significant depth underground).
question for pilots by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-05-01 12:34 · Score: 1

Why don't passenger planes have parachutes under every seat?
Answers along the lines of "because laypeople are stupid hurr" need not apply. Is there good reason which doesn't invoke an argument by authority, point out that 30k feet is too high, or remark that there probably won't be enough time for everyone to get out this way?
1. Re:question for pilots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  If an aircraft breaks up in flight (becuase of weather, explosion, collision, what have you) , or crashes into the ground or terrain without warning, parachutes will do no good.
  Most accidents are during landing and take off - parachutes are equally useless in this event.
  Also read up on flail injury, Jump out of a plane moving at 400 knots and you will look like a piece of hamburger floating down to the ground - assuming your chute and clothing is still on your body.
2. Re:question for pilots by Ksevio · 2011-05-01 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  - Passengers would need to be trained in their use - Jets are usually moving too fast to parachute out of - If they're not moving too fast, they're probably going to crash before they get the door open. - Pilots tend to want to land the plane rather than have everyone bail out. Basically there aren't many plausible situations where it would help. If the pilot can crash land, people are more likely to survive than if they all jump out.
3. Re:question for pilots by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-01 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  OTH I wonder how you could go if the pilot had the ability to dump all the cargo. I mean all the suitcases and such, not the self loading type though I am sure they have been tempted from time to time.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
4. Re:question for pilots by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-01 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Rear facing seats would be a big help though.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
5. Re:question for pilots by MichaelSmith · 2011-05-01 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  You can always take your own parachute if you want. My uncle has a military cargo parachute which he collected as a souvenir from Vietnam. It would pack up fairly tight and would be better than nothing in a free fall situation.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
6. Re:question for pilots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-01 19:30 · Score: 0
  
  Speed, temperature (usually freezing), height (oxygen levels), survival rate, liability and expense all make this completely impractical.
7. Re:question for pilots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-03 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Can you indicate a scenario where the provision of parachutes would save any lives?
  Airliners are not adapted for dropping parachutists. It is possible to parachute safely from an airliner if there is a rear exit under the tail and the aircraft is flown very slowly and stably at about 10,000 feet. Otherwise persons exiting an airliner through a normal door will probably be killed or severely injured on exit.
  If the aircraft is able to be flown stably and slowly at 10,000ft, it should be able to be flown down to a landing, on land or water. This will invariably save more lives.
  If the aircraft is not able to be flown in this manner, your choice is between dying while trying to exit the aircraft or dying during a crash.
  The only scenario I can envisage where having a parachute would be of value would be in a mid-air break-up at lowish altitude, where somehow you retain consciousness, are not injured as you are thrown free of the aircraft, and are ejected into air which is thick enough to breath. If a parachute were to be ejected with you, if you could grab it, and if you could then successfully get into and tighten up the harness without training under difficult conditions, and then operate it in time, you might save your life. Though if it were sea below you, you would probably drown an hour or so later.
  Of course, James Bond does this all the time. Perhaps, if you can as well, you should apply for a job with British Intelligence.....
Reminds me of something... by thaddeusthudpucker · 2011-05-01 16:39 · Score: 1

"We have access to virtually every kind of information. I found your name on the passenger list of the [plane] that crashed." Arthur was astonished. "You mean they knew about the crash?" "Well, of course they knew. You don't have a whole [airplane disappear into the Atlantic] without someone knowing about it.' "But you mean, they knew where it had happened? They knew I'd survived?' "Yes." "But nobody's ever been to look or search or rescue. There's been absolutely nothing." "Well there wouldn't be. It's a whole complicated [airliner manufacturing] thing. They just bury the whole thing. Pretend it never happened. The [airliner] business is completely screwy now. You know they've reintroduced the death penalty for [airliner manufacturing] company directors?' "Really?" said Arthur. "No I didn't. For what offence?' Trillian frowned. "What do you mean, offence?" "I see."
I work for the company... by ei4anb · 2011-05-01 23:30 · Score: 1

that owns the Ile de Sein and it feels good when some of our people do a difficult job so well, again,
I'm in a totally different division, can't claim any credit.
http://nauticallog.blogspot.com/2011/04/ile-de-sein.html
Voice data for all flights by Satellite by Tisha_AH · 2011-05-01 23:47 · Score: 1

There is more than one microphone on any voice recorder. There may be as many as five on some aircraft. Also, degrading the sound quality by lowering the data rate can mask other sounds that are even more critical than a flight crews last words.

--
Tisha Hayes
Just leave the car open with key in ignition by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-02 01:30 · Score: 0

Gee, it would be cheaper simply to not lock the car and simply buy a new one when it gets stolen.
Yes, I know that auto theft is a serious crime, but I don't get this business of conducting a high-speed chase to nab some loser who has stolen a car.
Like I was watching this episode of "Cops" (you betcha I watch it, it shows the whole 'tude of law enforcement), and they are chasing this guy. In a 10-year-old Saturn. I mean they are endangering the public to get this guy who stole a clapped-out GM car.
Several reasons: by sirwired · 2011-05-02 03:17 · Score: 1

1) This would help in surprisingly few crashes. Most crashes take place during "normal" takeoffs and landings.
2) Over the ocean, you'd need a parachute AND a life raft. (A dinky little inflatable life jacket isn't going to cut the mustard on the open ocean where hundreds of your fellow passengers are spread over miles and miles of (likely rough) water with NO floating aircraft bits to hold on to. And that's if you survive to get in the raft. Good luck having more than a few untrained people successfully ditch the parachute, swim to the surface, and find their life raft (while fully clothed) before they drown.
3) Over land, there is usually plenty of time to glide to an alternate airport (or smooth patch of ground.) If you have land smooth (and soft) enough to land untrained people in a parachute, it should be good enough to land the plane.
4) If the plane starts to break up, stall due to icing, etc., it would be in no condition to evacuate via parachute, as it almost certainly is not in smooth controlled flight at the time.
5) The plane is going too fast.
6) You can only evac through exits where your tumbling body isn't going to hit anything like the wing or tail.
7) You can't start the evac until the plane hits 10,000 ft or so. Before that the doors can't even open because of the pressure difference, and even if they could, you'd pass out due to hypoxia. (Bad Hollywood movies notwithstanding.)
8) Parachutes are HEAVY. You'd chop the passenger capacity of the aircraft by quite a bit by supplying everybody with a parachute.
SirWired