AirAsia QZ8501 Black Box Found 95
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.
Re:pings (Score:5, Informative)
Airbus doesn't sell aircraft fitted with data recorders which dont have the standard locator beacons.
Re:pings (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
C:\Users\Stevie>ping QZ8501
Ping request could not find host QZ8501. Please check the name and try again
Re: (Score:1)
You get no bars at the bottom of the ocean.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The salt water really ruins the drinks anyway
Re: (Score:1)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
There are a few teardowns of the pingers on Youtube. Fascinating watch.
They are extremely solidly built, all potted as well.
Re: (Score:2)
But they aren't indestructible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Disgusting (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.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 spe
Re:Disgusting (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 ?
/
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
Your insurance company really fucked you, didn't they?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Funny AC (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Oh look, an anti-western-economic bullshitter.
Black boxes have nothing to do with insurance.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, 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.
Re:Disgusting (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
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
"The" black box ? (Score:5, 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.
Re:"The" black box ? (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.
something does not add up (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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
please read the reply (Score:1)
(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: (Score:2)
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 h
Re: (Score:1)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
i am not responding to the OP at all (Score:1)
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.
Re:"The" black box ? (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.
Re:"The" black box ? (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.
Re:"The" black box ? (Score:5, 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.
Re:"The" black box ? (Score:5, 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.
Re:"The" black box ? (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Build the whole plane out of the black box (Score:2, Insightful)
That way it'll never get destroyed!
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly won't, because it will be too heavy to get off the ground.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless performs too poorly in water to use but modulated sound would work fine.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That's already possible. The reason they don't do it is cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Potting the passengers, crew, and luggage into the body of the plane would also prevent hijacking and terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Diving to 30+ meters? Probably air. And I'm guessing it's probably not a good idea to work divers to exhaustion.
Re: (Score:2)
It is deadly. And you will not get new divers.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)