Slashdot Mirror
AirAsia QZ8501 Black Box Found
jones_supa writes Indonesia's Directorate General of Marine Transport has confirmed that the black box of AirAsia QZ8501 has been found, Indonesian authorities said in a press release. The breakthrough comes exactly two weeks after the flight from Surabaya to Singapore went down with 162 people on board. In the press release, marine transport coordinator Tonny Budiono said that the credit goes to navy divers from Indonesia navy ship KN Jadayat, who found the black box at a depth of 30 to 32 meters. The black box is currently wedged between pieces of wreckage making it difficult for divers to retrieve, and due to time constraints, the actual retrieval will take place on Monday morning.
Why was it not transmitting pings? SAR chief said earlier that they didn't receive any pings from the black boxes.
I thought there were 2 of them
Flight Data recorder (records all the instrument readings and control inputs from the pilot)
Cockpit Voice recorder (rocords the voices of the pilot and copilot saying "shit"
Generally the first one is the most important source of information.
It helps investigators find out what led to the crash. That information can be used to prevent similar crashes in the future.
Related Reddit conversation ....
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/c...
That way it'll never get destroyed!
I can't tell what you're advocating, can you clarify? Are you making the case that planes shouldn't have black boxes?
Or are you advocating that they shouldn't have insurance?
One will do a partly.
That's not disgusting. The reason I can go to the mall and buy a huge flat screen TV isn't that somebody thought I deserve to do that or wanted to make the world a better place by manufacturing flat screens. It's that someone thought that making TVs seemed like a good way to get filthy fucking rich. If anything it's fascinating that a complex system like our society can be built on such simple motivations (profit) and rules (liability). It's called emergent behavior. You know, like swarms are not centrally governed but instead result from a few simple local rules. The swarm isn't encoded anywhere, it emerges from the behavior of its participants.
Yes, that is true. But you will not take away the justification to create black boxes in the first place, which is insurance, plain and simple.
You can sugar coat a pile of dogshit all you want. At the end of the day, it's still a pile of dogshit that smells, much like the truths that are hard to swallow.
You have NO idea what you are talking about. Insurance is
a secondary issue compared to preventing similar incidents
in the future. The entire history of aviation is filled with accidents
and incidents, many of which occurred when the current tort system
and all those who profit from it were not in existence.
Safety was the reason flight data recorders were created, PERIOD.
By the way, I work for NTSB. I do know what I am talking about, I have
worked in the field for over 20 years. What exactly are YOUR
qualifications, other than that you own a device which allows you to post
on Slashdot ?
/
What it really helps with is now I don't have to listen to ignorant idiots drumbeating in the media about how everything everywhere should be trackable all the time (complete with paid expensive subscriptions of course). One wonders what they get paid to say that...
Then of course it will be cars, and then people (starting with the children of course because we all know there's a kidnapper behind every tree).
Are these recorders the best we can do? No. Do we have to do what the boring repetitve idiots with an agenda on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al say? I really hope not
Oh look, an anti-western-economic bullshitter.
Black boxes have nothing to do with insurance.
care to elaborate?
But you will not take away the justification to create black boxes in the first place, which is insurance, plain and simple.
Even if this were true, what makes it a "pile of dogshit that smells". Insurance does serve a very useful role in our society.
Your insurance company really fucked you, didn't they?
By the way, I work for NTSB. I do know what I am talking about, I have
worked in the field for over 20 years. What exactly are YOUR
qualifications, other than that you own a device which allows you to post
on Slashdot ?
I'm the king of France!
er, but the justification to have black boxes is a famous aeroplane crash investigation Trans Australia Airlines Flight 538. The Australian investigating judge said that if such recorders were mandated it would have been possible to determine the actual circumstances of the crash. As it was, we can only speculate as to why Flight 538 crashed.
What's CNN going to prattle on about now?
They are not black and never have been, either in color and knowledge of their operation, and they have real names that are more descriptive and don't take any more syllables.
Arrrg
Different AC here. Are jets not insured by the airline? Saving lives is the most important reason, but is that truly the underlaying motivation? Wouldn't preventing a financial loss be the motive for both the financier and insurance company?
We can talk about the virtues of altruism, but at the end of the day, it's the almighty buck that sets the tone for why things are done and how.
We should count this fact as one of the greatest gifts that modern aviation, science, and policy has given us. The idea that those who died can save others in the future by figuring out what went wrong -- and that their loss is not squandered without doing something about it.
It fights the normal state of being helpless and clueless, and helps us advance. Screw those who say, "oh, this accident was God's will." No, it was not just some random/unknowable event -- it's something that we can fix and make sure it doesn't happen in the future.
Different AC here. Are jets not insured by the airline? Saving lives is the most important reason, but is that truly the underlaying motivation? Wouldn't preventing a financial loss be the motive for both the financier and insurance company?
A loss of an aircraft is not worth the gain from insurance. It still hurts, insurance just makes it hurt less.
The worst possible outcome for the airline is that people start to get the idea that air travel is unsafe. Losing an aircraft is bad, but a loss in confidence from the public is worth the entire industry. That goal is aligned with the goal of making sure that accidents don't occur, and that is the primary motivating reason.
By the way, I work for NTSB. I do know what I am talking about, I have
worked in the field for over 20 years. What exactly are YOUR
qualifications, other than that you own a device which allows you to post
on Slashdot ?
Says the AC.
Yet no 10km long missile trail that should be visible from 25km away to the naked eye, new super stealthy missile uh huh. And all those spy satellites that can read number plates on cars also missed it because 'er' 'um' it was Russia's fault and that's all we need to know.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Basically, Even without the current tort system. The airlines need to make sure that flights are very safe. The reason being that the public is afraid to fly and anything that ads to that fear will be disastrous. Look at Malaysia Airlines if you want to see what being perceived as unsafe will do for you.
Insurance externalizes internalities.
No, it doesn't. There are ways to turn costs or sudden losses into externalities via publicly provided or covered insurance, but that's not an consequence of all insurance.
It seems necessary because its existence over many decades has fucked up society enough to make it that way.
It's been no easier in the past to deal with sudden catastrophes than it is now.
I don't claim to know what actually happened to that flight. Something surely took it down.
from bbc - "Divers retrieved one of the flight data recorders of crashed AirAsia Flight QZ8501, says officials, but the voice recorder is still missing"
if you are right, then the report is a lie.
can you support your statement?
Indeed. And the situation for commercial air travel shows us where we can take this idea in other forms of transport.
For example NASA runs (independently from the FAA) a service where pilots, ATC and others can report incidents that weren't accidents but are safety-related. The reporter is granted immunity from normal FAA disciplinary processes for reporting (thus providing an incentive) and their report is anonymised before analysis. Examples of things discovered this way would include e.g. aeroplane model XXX1 has this weird feature where display for control A can be switched into a mode where it works the opposite way to usual. A pilot who checks A only when there's a problem might be confused by this and think A has failed when it has not (or worse, that it is working when in fact it has failed). And then that group within NASA can go to the FAA with their analysis and the FAA can ask the manufacturer - what's that even for? Can you remove that confusing feature or make it non-confusing?
Most accidents involve several things going wrong. if we detect one of those things in a previous non-accident, and prevent it happening again, we prevent the accident or mitigate it to some extent. Some of those things are mechanical - we can build better planes or fix existing ones, and some are psychological - we can train pilots better. Almost every accident has some elements where we know how to improve, and that's why flying (commercially) is incredibly safe.
I'm advocating that planes shouldn't have black boxes. It's just another way for the 1% (via the insurance companies) to scam us by reducing payouts to the victims.
You can't possibly be this stupid.
Personally, I disagree with the AC's assertion that black boxes are about insurance. And I have a logic problem for the AC:
There are approximately 5 ways for an aircraft to go down:
1. Human error, crew: The crew does something to cause the plane to crash.
Fault: Airline's. Airline's insurance pays
2. Mechanical error: Something fails on the aircraft, causing crash
Fault: Airline's. Airline's insurance pays
3. Human deliberate action: Terrorism, missile, etc...
Fault: Somebody else's, but generally speaking the airline's insurance still pays.
4. Outside accident: Two planes crash
Fault: Up for grabs, but let's figure it's the other plane's fault. Their insurance pays.
5. Environmental: Tornado, lighting strike, etc....
Fault: Airline's for flying into that mess. Airline's insurance company pays.
Flight data recorders don't record enough information, and the airline's insurance is going to pay in enough cases anyways that it's not worth it to push for black boxes in that case. Instead they're generally required by law so that the accident boards can better figure out the cause of the action and recommend remediation. As a result, airline travel is the safest means of moving long distances.
I don't read AC A human right
I don't reply to ACs, but I found the ac funny:
Yes... Prevent them in the future.... So insurance doesn't have to pay out in the future.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have an accident, especially a fatal one, in the first place. That the insurance company doesn't have to pay out as a result is a non-issue. ;)
Heck, I'd almost be glad to pay the insurance company if they were able to *prevent* an accident in the first place.
I don't read AC A human right
(currently scored 5, informative) to which i am responding. according to that, they are not different devices, they are redundant units - there are two, and BOTH record BOTH cockpit voice AND flight data, i presume on the same media. at last word the bbc is reporting that the cockpit voice is still missing, but this does not make sense, if the AC i am replying to is correct.
please read the reply (currently scored 5, informative) to which i am responding. according to that, they are not different devices, they are redundant units - there are two, and BOTH record BOTH cockpit voice AND flight data, i presume on the same media. at last word the bbc is reporting that the cockpit voice is still missing, but this does not make sense, if the AC i am replying to is correct.
Insurance externalizes internalities.
No, it doesn't.
In what way does it not? With insurance someone else is paying the bill even when you fuck up. You will feel some additional pain but most of it is offloaded.
There are ways to turn costs or sudden losses into externalities via publicly provided or covered insurance, but that's not an consequence of all insurance.
My remarks are limited to "most Insurance".
It's been no easier in the past to deal with sudden catastrophes than it is now.
I'm not so sure. In isolation this is an easy case to make...hey a tree fell on my house and now I can afford to fix it... there are also downsides and opportunity costs.
Hospital industry is a good example of what happens when you allow externalities to run rampant. Huge increases in overall share of GDP for little measurable improvement in outcomes. What is worse most of the expenditures go into dealing with the consequences of diseases which normally only occur when people fail to take proper care of themselves.
In any event disagreement is not grounds for -1 troll mod and +4 insightful is hardly deserved by those who veer off topic.
In what way does it not? With insurance someone else is paying the bill even when you fuck up. You will feel some additional pain but most of it is offloaded.
Because it's a voluntary transaction. An externality is an involuntary cost or benefit imposed by a transaction or activity.
Hospital industry is a good example of what happens when you allow externalities to run rampant. Huge increases in overall share of GDP for little measurable improvement in outcomes.
Note that you aren't actually speaking of insurance here. There are other factors inflating the cost of us health care.