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.

Comments

pings

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was it not transmitting pings? SAR chief said earlier that they didn't receive any pings from the black boxes.

Re:pings

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was it not transmitting pings? SAR chief said earlier that they didn't receive any pings from the black boxes.

Indonesia will announce on Monday that the black boxes cannot be retrieved either due to poor conditions (atmospheric and oceanic) or the wreckage has drifted from its previous location and they are unsure of its present location. As for the lack of ping there is little doubt the batteries were discharged early and possibly the battery was not chargeable at the time of the incident. As it stands there are more questions than answers.

Re:pings

[alen]

AirAsia was either too cheap to buy that license or that aircraft didn't fly into the USA or any other first world nation and therefore could be powered by hamsters for all anyone cared

Re:pings

[ColdWetDog]

If the box is half buried in the mud and debris, you may not hear the ping at all or it may be very attenuated. It's just an audio signal, not magic.

Re:pings

[stevie.f]

I tried pinging it and wasn't successful either.

C:\Users\Stevie>ping QZ8501
Ping request could not find host QZ8501. Please check the name and try again

Re:pings

[Richard_at_work]

Perhaps it was damaged in the crash? It didn't land in a bed of roses after being gently thrown from a stationary aircraft...

Re:pings

[Richard_at_work]

Airbus doesn't sell aircraft fitted with data recorders which dont have the standard locator beacons.

Re:pings

[davester666]

You get no bars at the bottom of the ocean.

Re:pings

[Anonymous Coward]

The salt water really ruins the drinks anyway

Re:pings

[cheater512]

There are a few teardowns of the pingers on Youtube. Fascinating watch.
They are extremely solidly built, all potted as well.

Re:pings

[Richard_at_work]

But they aren't indestructible.

Re:pings

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply not true; I demand that you retract that statement.
http://www.cntraveler.com/galleries/2014-07-28/7-underwater-restaurants-and-bars-around-the-world

Re: pings

[Anonymous Coward]

It's trying to ping you, not the other way round. Open up your firewall.

Re:pings

[davester666]

nice. of course, 3 out of 7 "underwater restaurants" are just last aquariums, and not actually underwater in the normal use of the word. If those count, then every hotel with an above-ground pool also can sell themselves as having an "underwater restaurant".

What if..

[Anonymous Coward]

it's really from that Malaysia flight and there was some kind of time distortion and ding dong ping pong who was telephone?

Re:What if..

[SternisheFan]

Speaking of that... https://mh17.correctiv.org/eng...

Related Reddit conversation ....

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/c...

Re:What if..

[rtb61]

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.

Re:What if..

[SternisheFan]

I don't claim to know what actually happened to that flight. Something surely took it down.

Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

This is hailed as the all-saving grace, almost like rescuing half of the passengers. And why? Because it determines the distribution of which insurance has to pay what recompensation to whom. Some have won the lottery now, some not.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

It helps investigators find out what led to the crash. That information can be used to prevent similar crashes in the future.

Re: Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't be surprised if it was a jihad just like what's happening in Paris. Allah Akbar!

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

It helps investigators find out what led to the crash. That information can be used to prevent similar crashes in the future.

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.

Re:Disgusting

[Paul Carver]

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?

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ?

/

Re: Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Disgusting

[Richard_at_work]

Oh look, an anti-western-economic bullshitter.

Black boxes have nothing to do with insurance.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... Prevent them in the future.... So insurance doesn't have to pay out in the future.

Re:Disgusting

[khallow]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[Deadstick]

Your insurance company really fucked you, didn't they?

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[WaffleMonster]

Even if this were true, what makes it a "pile of dogshit that smells". Insurance does serve a very useful role in our society.

Insurance externalizes internalities. It seems necessary because its existence over many decades has fucked up society enough to make it that way.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[supernova87a]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

/meta

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[khallow]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't possibly be this stupid.

Re:Disgusting

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:Disgusting

[khallow]

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.

"The" black box ?

[rossdee]

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.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bot FDR and CVR record the same data on an A320. They are redundant units. One is in the tail, one is in the middle of the aircraft. If one is found, they have everything they need to investigate.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would almost have made more sense for you to complain about the fact that it's not even black.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Richard_at_work]

The FDR usually gives the "how", the CVR typically fills in the "why".

The FDR gave us a Controlled Flight Into Terrain in the AF447 crash, the CVR told us the crew were completely confused as to what was going on and didn't perform the correct procedures.

The CVR also records other sounds in the cockpit, and has been used many times to determine if certain actions were performed, identifying if the failure was mechanical or human error - for example, in one case a plane that overrun the runway on landing in bad weather because the pilots failed to arm the spoilers, which was determined through the lack of arming sound on the CVR.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

AF447 was not controlled flight, it was falling like a brick with a slight nose up pitch. They had barely any airspeed but the idiot with his hand on the sidestick thought they had too much, to quote him "crazy speed".

I might add another example of the CVR providing data through registered sounds: Air Florida 90. They didn't have takeoff thrust but thought they did because the engine pressure ratio indicators were frozen and showed a higher value than reality. The investigators compared the engine sound from an identical aircraft with that heard on the CVR. I also recall from watching Air Crash Investigation that in an explosion with practically no conversation recorded after the event, there can be an indication on the tape just before it ends due to the microphone having a noise filter which registers that some sound is coming.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Richard_at_work]

AF447 was controlled flight, the pilots were in complete control for the entire time, there was no departure from pilot command at any time during the flight. There was no mechanical failure which caused the aircraft from being uncontrollable.

That makes it CFIT within the meaning defined by accident investigators. The aerodynamic stall was created by the pilot-flying action, and could have corrected the issue at any point, but did not. The aircraft was not in a situation where command input would not have been able to control the aircraft, so definitely a CFIT.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. A perfectly flyable aircraft crashing is not necessarily a CFIT and a mechanical failure can very well cause a CFIT. CFIT means that the crew think they are in control and do know where they are but crash because they're mistaken if e.g. an altimeter gives an incorrect (too high) reading. These clowns didn't think they had control of the aircraft, which is pretty fucking evident from the CVR. They didn't know what the aircraft was doing (despite the constant stall warnings) or what to do to fix it (worse stall recovery than a moron student pilot). See for yourself what CFIT accidents have actually been like and how a mechanical failure is often the cause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_flight_into_terrain

I know that wikipedia is a shit source for factual matters but that's a list from which you can get to the actual accident investigation reports if you're genuinely interested in learning. If you just want to double down on your erroneous position, well, I can't help you then.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Richard_at_work]

You really need to go read various accident reports and accident investigation guidelines and stop relying on Wikipedia just like you say, because it is so seriously poor at shit like this its unbelievable.

I also never said "a perfectly flyable aircraft crashing" is always CFIT, but it is when the pilots fly the aircraft into the ground for whatever reason - which is precisely what happened with AF447. The crew never believed they were not in control, they just ignored a lot of the data they were seeing because they thought it was wrong and that they knew better. And thus the aircraft hit the ground because of the actions of the pilots and not because of any other reason.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are a fucking moron.

Re:"The" black box ?

[RubberDogBone]

Wish I had mod points, but then I would not get to say Bravo for nailing it.

AF447 was clearly CFIT. Nothing stopped the crew from preventing the crash except their own belief that they knew better than the systems they relied upon basically ALL the other time they were flying. But once, over the ocean and in a storm, they knew better.

I never understand how drivers flying heavys suddenly think they can do the seat-of-the-pants thing like they're flying a barnstormer, much less at the very moment when all their skill needs to come to play. But it happens. AF447 was not the first time raw ego flew into terrain and it won't be the last, unfortunately.

This Air Asia plane probably broke up in weather from the sound of the wreckage. Why it didn't do more to evade the weather is going to a good question. Boxes will tell the story.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This Air Asia plane probably broke up in weather from the sound of the wreckage. Why it didn't do more to evade the weather is going to a good question. Boxes will tell the story.

Based on your earlier stupidity in this thread, I'll also attribute this idiotic statement to stupidity and not to ignorance. It has already been established that the aircraft did not break up in the air. The debris found is in large pieces in a relatively small area - it's even possible that some people survived the impact since at least one escape chute = life raft was found inflated.

Re:"The" black box ?

[RubberDogBone]

Earlier stupidity?

Look you fucking anon, this was my first post at all on this thread so don't you -a fucking coward who won't use their own login name- accuse me of anything.

Go fuck some broken glass. It'll be more action than you've seen lately. Better ending too.

Re:"The" black box ?

[tlhIngan]

I never understand how drivers flying heavys suddenly think they can do the seat-of-the-pants thing like they're flying a barnstormer, much less at the very moment when all their skill needs to come to play. But it happens. AF447 was not the first time raw ego flew into terrain and it won't be the last, unfortunately.

Funny enough, people believe the LACK OF basic flying skills ("seat of the pants" flying) generally results in a lot of accidents, including the Asiana flight that ended up crashing at SFO. And it's likely to happen MORE in countries that do not have a working GA infrastructure - where all flying is either commercial or military, and thus there's no such thing as flying for fun.

Basic flying skills are what's needed when the automation is going wrong. Automation can mess up easily - either being misprogrammed, or sensors failing or sensors covered up. The goal is to recognize the automation is incorrect, and figure out what is needed to fix it.

Pitot-static system not functioning? You know, Attitude+Power=Performance. A certain attitude, a certain power setting, and you know how the airplane is supposed to perform - you can estimate the airspeed based on that alone. Doesn't matter that the system is failed, you know how to make it not stall.

Stick-shaker and stall horn blaring? Even the lowest of low end aircraft have a stall horn. They're not powered by automation - it's a little sensor telling you the center of pressure is a bit too far forward on the wing and you're gonna stall. Doesn't matter what the automation says - you can stall at any attitude and at any airspeed - the only factor is the angle of relative wind to the chord. While low end aircraft use center of pressure to estimate, fancy aircraft have Angle of Attack indicators that measure this exact thing. If that stick shaker rumbles and the stall horn (or screaming betsy) is going off, you're stalling. Doesn't matter what the airplane is saying on any other screen - you're stalling or stalled.

Nothing wrong with seat of the pants flying. Most errors are caused by target fixation, disbelief (the airplane can't be stalled - the stick shaker must be wrong!), and other human responses. You believe the airplane is doing X, and you disregard all evidence the airplane is saying it's really doing Y. "Why is the stick shaker rumbling? I'm not in a stall".

It can be so bad even stick PUSHERS are overcome - a stick pusher triggers when the aircraft is actually in a stalled condition and crews have been known to overcome even that (it gets heavy, pull harder!).

Interestingly, it really is "seat of the pants" flying - about the only accurate sensor a human has in flying is... their butt. How the seat feels in their butt can tell a lot about the attitude and behavior of the airplane. The ears are among the worst, and eyes are pretty bad.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

AF447 was not controlled flight,

Yes it was. The plane was mostly (except for some iced-up sensors) fine and airworthy and the pilots were able to use all control surfaces and engine thrust.

Damn it, the plane was basically screaming at them that it was stalled. But they kept pulling the nose up instead of trying to level the plane.

Captch: educator. hehe

Re:"The" black box ?

[Rich0]

You really need both. You can't fly an airliner like a Cessna, but you also can't just depend on your ability to dial in an ILS and hit the approach button.

What you really need is good simulator training on top of general piloting skills. If you've been in a situation 10 times already, then the 11th won't be as much of a problem. Of course no two disasters are identical, but from what I've read the AAF situation was one that had a procedure. Obviously if the procedure isn't working you need to improvise, but if there is a procedure it is because a bunch of engineers/pilots/etc studied the situation and determined that it was the solution with the best likelihood of success.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it was easy to notice that you're the same moron but just using a different account. Such megaton scale stupidity as you have exhibited occurs so rarely in nature that the probability that you would be someone else is infinitesimally small.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read the CVR transcript - or preferably the entire report. The crew could've controlled the aircraft but they did not think so. Just a few of the phrases uttered:

Co-pilot in left seat: "I don’t have control of the airplane any more now "
Co-pilot in left seat: "I don’t have control of the airplane at all"

Co-pilot in right seat: "What’s happening? I don’t know I don’t know what’s happening"
Co-pilot in right seat: "We lost all control of the aeroplane we don’t understand anything we’ve tried everything"

Captain: "There I don’t know there it’s going down "

This crew certainly knew that they were fucked even though the aircraft would've been perfectly recoverable if only they had done the right thing and done it soon enough (recovering from a stall in the thin air at cruise altitude "costs" a lot of altitude). Only an accident in which the crew think they are in control and think the aircraft is flying as intended but hits terrain is classified as CFIT. In other words, the crew shouldn't expect anything bad to happen but this crew was certainly aware that that they would sooner or later hit the ocean unless they got the descent to stop.

Re:"The" black box ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaking controllable for controlled. It doesn't matter that the plane could've been flown properly by the crew since they did not think they had control. Just read the CVR transcript. The key criterion for CFIT is whether the crew think they have control or not (i.e. know where they are and what they're doing), not whether they actually do. It doesn't matter if the plane is fine or not. Instrument failures are a common cause of CFIT and you wouldn't argue that a plane with an incorrect altimeter reading is fine now would you?

Build the whole plane out of the black box

[Anonymous Coward]

That way it'll never get destroyed!

Re:Build the whole plane out of the black box

[Deadstick]

It certainly won't, because it will be too heavy to get off the ground.

Re:Build the whole plane out of the black box

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, do we really need to find the physical box? What would it take to be able to retrieve all of the data off of the box wirelessly?
We would still need to locate the "ping" but at least we wouldn't have to find the actual box.

Re:Build the whole plane out of the black box

[parkinglot777]

I think it needs battery to keep it on 24/7 in order ot keep broadcasting. Also, not sure about how different wireless signal goes through water (in this case). So it is possible to implement the idea you mentioned, but not sure if it is effective in both usability and cost in general...

Re:Build the whole plane out of the black box

[darkmeridian]

At some point in time, each and every aircraft will have satellite Internet. How hard would it be at that point to have the black box data streamed in near-real time to a command base? You can make the link one-way so even if security is compromised, there would be no risk to flight systems.

Re:Build the whole plane out of the black box

[Shagg]

That's already possible. The reason they don't do it is cost.

Re:Build the whole plane out of the black box

[Agripa]

Potting the passengers, crew, and luggage into the body of the plane would also prevent hijacking and terrorism.

Re:Build the whole plane out of the black box

[Agripa]

Also, not sure about how different wireless signal goes through water

Wireless performs too poorly in water to use but modulated sound would work fine.

Usually there are three

[Anonymous Coward]

One will do a partly.

time constraints?

[Anonymous Coward]

care to elaborate?

Re:time constraints?

[jones_supa]

Probably just the day coming to end and it becoming dark.

Re:time constraints?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or divers running out of air, maximum dive time etc.

Re: time constraints?

[Anonymous Coward]

could be a storm coming in (too lazy to check)

Re:time constraints?

[hey!]

Diving to 30+ meters? Probably air. And I'm guessing it's probably not a good idea to work divers to exhaustion.

Re: time constraints?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure hope you're not on the search team.

Re:time constraints?

[gweihir]

It is deadly. And you will not get new divers.

Re:time constraints?

[myid]

Can searchers in small research submarines look for the voice recorder? That seems safer that diving, but maybe even small submaries are too big for this kind of searching - I don't know.

I just keep thinking about the two divers who died searching for people in the MV Sewol, and the diver who died trying to help free the Costa Concordia for removal.

Re:time constraints?

[gweihir]

Diving is a high-risk occupation. But small manned subs are also risky, exceedingly expensive and cannot do most things divers can. And there are not many, hence divers are used. A friend of mine is in submarine robotics, and the situation there may change the game eventually, but not anytime soon.

CNN is now scrambling

[Anonymous Coward]

What's CNN going to prattle on about now?

Re:CNN is now scrambling

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary-Bush 2016

STOP calling them "bl**k b***s

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:STOP calling them "bl**k b***s

[gweihir]

They are called "black box" because data goes in and nothing comes out. It is a perfectly valid designation that has nothing to do with color.

Re:STOP calling them "bl**k b***s

[k6mfw]

Because everybody knows what a black box does even those that don't. With newer cars outfitted with recorder boxes, they call them black boxes so people know it's this thing that stores data for experts to examine later when "something" happens.

something does not add up

[rewindustry]

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?

Re:something does not add up

[thegarbz]

Why is the report a lie? They are still to different devices.

They are also built differently and subject to different forces during a crash. They know where the fuselage is so there's very little in the way of problem retrieving the devices. Not sure about the statement but would it not be better to have two of the recording devices which just suffered from a high speed collision with water and dropped into the bottom of the ocean rather than relying on one to be perfectly functional? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A quick google search shows that in digital flight recorders the functions are often combined though I didn't find any evidence of what is in the A320.

Re:something does not add up

[dave420]

The only thing which does not add up is your reading comprehension :) The OP stated there are two recorders, which record both the flight data & the cockpit voice. So no, both can be correct.

Re:something does not add up

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the original AC : "Bot FDR and CVR record the same data on an A320. They are redundant units."
CVR and FDR are in fact regulatory designations. In most (not ancient) Airbusses they are combined into the same chassis.
One of these is located in the mid-section of the plane. One is aft of the pressure bulkhead.

Since the tail of the aircraft and the fuselage broke up, they would want to retreive both units. The mid fuselage unit may contain a couple of seconds of extra data and voice.

There is probably actually even a third recorder in the avionics bay (front of the aircraft). Though this recorder is non-hardened and an optional purchase item. This one is to provide easy access to data for mainenance purposes. This one records only data though.

Funny AC

[Firethorn]

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.

please read the reply

[rewindustry]

(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.

Re:please read the reply

[thegarbz]

I did and my point was the same. Redundancy does not mean 100% identical. Look it up. In the digital world both devices located in different areas of the plane built in different ways record the same set of data (in some planes).

Now as to if this is 100% the case I don't know. But I do know journalists and if the hear something like we have an FDR but no FVC most of them these days don't bother following up on the the details and will simply rush out and say "Voice still missing".

As of the time I posted I had zero reason to believe either the news reports or the GP, but enough evidence to show that either of them could be perfectly right.

Re:please read the reply

[rewindustry]

thank you for clarifying. my opinion is that, since we have the ability, it makes a lot more sense to record both streams on both devices, as this gives a better chance of recovery, should either or both be compromised. i wonder what the truth is...

i am not responding to the OP at all

[rewindustry]

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.