Airbus in talks with regulator on ejectable 'black boxes'

[Pitbull]

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

Yea, why not. Not like they weigh a ton

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.

Sure but it doesn't need a 100% uptime link I suppose. If connection is lost for a shot period of time, the date built up over that period will be uploaded once connected again? Obviously not as 100% as data recorders but they won't get lost

 

[Rickster]

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?

Collision detection maybe, honestly why wasnt this thought of years ago.

 

[zippy]

What they need is real time positioning or least some kind of automated emergency transmission if certain parameters are exceeded such as change in altitude, speed, cabin pressure which are outside of operating parameters.

They also need to place the equipment where it cant be got at by any crew and switched off.

 

[Dave]

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

I thought the same, a fitted box like now, and a secondary ejectable box fitted in the tail that ejects on impact.

 

[lancon]

Use g-force as a trigger maybe???

 

[lancon]

Or only eject when there is a water landing/crash. Depth gauge trigger??

 

[thestaggy]

Is there a reason why transoceanic/transcontinental flights don't transmit their in-flight data and voice recordings back to terrestrial recorders?

NASA can monitor a freakin' rover on Mars and we can't tell what is happening with a passenger airliner that is flying over the Pacific Ocean?