Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AirAsia QZ8501 Black Box Found

Posted by timothy on from the what-was-lost dept.

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.

23 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. "The" black box ? by rossdee · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:"The" black box ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:"The" black box ? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:"The" black box ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:"The" black box ? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:"The" black box ? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:"The" black box ? by RubberDogBone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    7. Re:"The" black box ? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:"The" black box ? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  3. Build the whole plane out of the black box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That way it'll never get destroyed!

    1. Re:Build the whole plane out of the black box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. Re:Disgusting by Paul+Carver · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  5. Re:Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 ?

    /

  6. Re:pings by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. Re:pings by stevie.f · · Score: 2, Funny

    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

  8. Re:pings by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  9. Re:Disgusting by khallow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Disgusting by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  11. Re:Disgusting by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:pings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The salt water really ruins the drinks anyway

  13. Re:Disgusting by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:pings by cheater512 · · Score: 2

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