Airbus in talks with regulator on ejectable 'black boxes'

[Ockie]

MONTREAL/PARIS Jan 12 (Reuters) - Airbus has begun talks with a European regulator on proposals to make ejectable flight recorders available on its two largest models, the A380 and the new A350, potentially making them the first commercial planes to use the technology.

The European company said it was also not ruling out expanding the use of ejectable recorders, which combine both voice and data recordings, to new versions of its popular A330 and A320 planes.

The talks with the European Aviation Safety Agency come as global aviation authorities consider recommending the devices to make it easier to recover evidence in cases such as the Dec 28 crash of an AirAsia jet, whose data recorder was recovered more than two weeks later but whose voice recorder is still missing.

Used in military planes for decades, ejectable or "deployable" recorders separate from the tail during a crash and float, while emitting a satellite distress signal.

"Airbus is working with EASA ... and other stakeholders to advance the approval of such a solution industry-wide," said a spokesman for the European planemaker, adding there was no indication when the devices would be in use on Airbus planes.

"In the future, applicability for our other aircraft products could be likewise considered, but presently we have decided to focus on the A350 and A380," he added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015...ane-ejectable-recorders-idUSL6N0UR1NM20150112

 

[Dave]

Probably a good idea, needs to be implemented ASAP to try and reduce the problem of boxes sinking with the plane.

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

Probably a good idea, needs to be implemented ASAP to try and reduce the problem of boxes sinking with the plane.

Or change all the routes to only go over land.

This post is dripping in sarcasm and I am quite aware that, doing so will never work...

 

[Compton_effect]

Nice idea.
But how's this for a brainstorm. Make position transmitters mandatory on all flights!
Not just an optional extra.
The idea that in this day and age a plane is on its own the moment it flies over the ocean is ludicrous.

 

[Ecco]

Eliminate the box as a primary device for this information. There must be a way for the telemetry etc to be broadcast and recorded somewhere as the first point of information.

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

Eliminate the box as a primary device for this information. There must be a way for the telemetry etc to be broadcast and recorded somewhere as the first point of information.

Build in a self destruct as well. Would be awesome!

 

[Pitbull]

But when does it eject? At the start of a problem or only once there is no turning back?

So much conversation and measurements still happen until the plane stops. So when do they plan ejecting them?

 

[Ockie]

Eliminate the box as a primary device for this information. There must be a way for the telemetry etc to be broadcast and recorded somewhere as the first point of information.

There is. Air France employs tech on their Airbus planes that sends technical data on the plane during its journey to its maintenance crews. This helps them be prepared to to do any maintenance on the plane when it lands and to get it back into the air again as quickly as possible. Part of the information iirc is location. But with the Air France A330 that went down, even though they had a approximate location, it still left a very large area to search.

 

[Ockie]

But when does it eject? At the start of a problem or only once there is no turning back?

So much conversation and measurements still happen until the plane stops. So when do they plan ejecting them?

Possibly link it to the altitude meters? Once it reaches a minimum allowed altitude while it is supposed to be cruising have it triggered and eject the boxes?

 

[Pitbull]

Possibly link it to the altitude meters? Once it reaches a minimum allowed altitude while it is supposed to be cruising have it triggered and eject the boxes?

But very important info like the position of the nose on impact and so on will be lost not so? Or is that not to important when they investigate these crashes and for research? Just an example.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Interesting concept.

Won't it fall prey to people first on the site of a crash, who usually will carry away stuff before the sheriff and his posse arrives?

 

[Ockie]

But very important info like the position of the nose on impact and so on will be lost not so? Or is that not to important when they investigate these crashes and for research? Just an example.

Nah. I would not say that it important. Most definately not as important as having the black boxes in the first place. With the Air France crash for example, they determined that he plane belly flopped into the ocean, but they did not need the black boxes for that. The structural damage told them that. In this case it was a definate good to know however, as this indicated a stall.

 

[Paul_S]

Possibly link it to the altitude meters? Once it reaches a minimum allowed altitude while it is supposed to be cruising have it triggered and eject the boxes?

The black boxes would need to at least be able to receive their own GPS signals for positioning as well as contain a elevation map for the entire planet so that they know when to eject just before impact.
The Himalayan mountain range has over 100 peaks exceeding 23,600 ft so a simple "eject at 1000 feet MSL" system is not going to work.
A forward looking ground radar is also not going to work if the aircraft is not in a normal flight attitude.

 

[LazyLion]

Or change all the routes to only go over land.

 

[Bismuth]

While I do support the idea of ejectable "black boxes", my concern is that the system to enable this creates a weak spot in the aircraft (at least that's the first thing that came to mind when I read it). Nevermind the issue (which has already been brought up), as to WHEN should they be ejected.

Positional transmitters are a good start here, just need to get around the certification and cost of this option.

B

 

[Pitbull]

While I do support the idea of ejectable "black boxes", my concern is that the system to enable this creates a weak spot in the aircraft (at least that's the first thing that came to mind when I read it). Nevermind the issue (which has already been brought up), as to WHEN should they be ejected.

Positional transmitters are a good start here, just need to get around the certification and cost of this option.

B

Agreed. Why not a constant upload of data to a central hub. No black boxes needed...

 

[bwana]

But when does it eject? At the start of a problem or only once there is no turning back?

So much conversation and measurements still happen until the plane stops. So when do they plan ejecting them?

How about a primary and secondary boxes - one that is ejected at the last moment and the other that remains with the plane?

 

[Paul_S]

Agreed. Why not a constant upload of data to a central hub. No black boxes needed...

Long range communication is not 100% reliable (atmospheric interference) but yes, it could be used in addition to local storage as a backup option.
The chances of both failing is a lot lower.

 

[Y'all Qaeda]

Why not copy the data to hundreds of flashdrives that eject and sprays area with sticks.

 

[garyc]

The military recorders are deployed when the ejection seat releases (not applicable here) or when an impact sensor picks up a crash. It then floats until it is picked up. Here is a typical system: http://www.drs.com/Products/C3A/PDF/DFIRS.pdf.

The problem is that there will be a few accidental deployments per year. Since airliners fly over cities a lot this may cause a safety problem.