Aircraft Cockpit Voice Recorder / Flight Data Recorder

MisterHappy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
21,982
Likes
7,061
Location
On the 16 yard line, shootin' for the Lewis!
So, I've taken to watching Air Disasters, as electronic wallpaper in the evenings.

One of the issues is that after a crash, the CVR and FDR are often FUBAR.

IIRC, many planes are in near-real-time with the airlines' home offices with flight telemetry.

My question is: why is the FDR data not uploaded in real time, as there is such an availability of bandwidth these days? I can understand that the CVR stuff might be a confidentiality issue, but the raw engineering data should be OK?

Thoughts?
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
12,282
Likes
12,426
Location
MA
I bet it costs too much for too little return? Wouldn't you need a really powerful transmitter on each plane to push the signal, plus reliable receivers along the route? You'd need to R&D all that, construct it, and maintain it, and for what? A tiny possibility they'd ever be used? The airlines would need to pay for that, meaning... more baggage fees. Lol.

Or maybe I'm totally off on this. I dunno. I'm not a commo guy.

My understanding is that the current state of crash forensics is advanced enough that most crash reconstructions can get it right even without the data recorders, though of course it'd be better to have them.
 

appraiser

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
10,694
Likes
5,079
99.999% of the time the CVR and FDR are recovered intact, it is when a plane disappears like MH370 that the questions go unanswered.

A plane moving at 500Kts covers a lot of ground and setting up recieving stations would be brutally expensive, plus there can be several thousand commercial aircraft in the air at one time requiring a lot of infrastructure.

IMHO it would be better if the data was compressed and sent in packets every 10 minutes, not only the CVR and FDR, but information from the various systems (hydraulics, engines, etc)
 

Baby Billy

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
1,382
Likes
1,253
Location
New England
99.999% of the time the CVR and FDR are recovered intact, it is when a plane disappears like MH370 that the questions go unanswered.

A plane moving at 500Kts covers a lot of ground and setting up recieving stations would be brutally expensive, plus there can be several thousand commercial aircraft in the air at one time requiring a lot of infrastructure.
But we kinda already do that with ADS-B, right? I wonder if the amount of data is too much to be transmitted over that system.

Interested.
 

RDG

Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
2,039
Likes
937
Location
Western, MA
The only way this would really ever work would be to use satellites.
and Satcom data is super expensive. FDRs capture hundreds of data points per second ... that’s a ton of info to transmit. Adds up quickly.

A lot of modern airplanes are now using a combination FDR/CVR.. and they usually install two... one in the nose and one in the tail. Doubling the chance of getting useable data after a crash.

Also most modern jets send out data anytime there’s a problem with the aircraft to the company’s maintenance departments. I get an email right to my phone anytime there’s a issue with the jets I maintain , in flight automatically.
 
Last edited:

RDG

Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
2,039
Likes
937
Location
Western, MA
So is it the amount of data that makes it impossible? I realize it is different data. But there is obviously a way for planes to communicate with the ground.
it’s not impossible... it’d just get very expensive, very quickly... with unfortunately to little gain for most. Airlines would never go for it.
you be shocked how expensive satcom data use Is.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,720
Likes
1,715
I bet it costs too much for too little return? Wouldn't you need a really powerful transmitter on each plane to push the signal, plus reliable receivers along the route? You'd need to R&D all that, construct it, and maintain it, and for what? A tiny possibility they'd ever be used? The airlines would need to pay for that, meaning... more baggage fees. Lol.

Or maybe I'm totally off on this. I dunno. I'm not a commo guy.

My understanding is that the current state of crash forensics is advanced enough that most crash reconstructions can get it right even without the data recorders, though of course it'd be better to have them.
They already have in flight wifi... i feel like easily could piggy back off that
 

Baby Billy

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
1,382
Likes
1,253
Location
New England
it’s not impossible... it’d just get very expensive, very quickly... with unfortunately to little gain for most. Airlines would never go for it.
you be shocked how expensive satcom data use Is.
Why does it have to be satcom? Because of the amount of data? Overseas coverage? For less than $100 you can set up a station that tracks planes overhead, with a decent range. Why couldn't they send moar data over that same system? Genuinely curious.
 

appraiser

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
10,694
Likes
5,079
back to the question... for what purpose, besides MH370 and an Indian Air Force plane, what planes have gone missing on the last 20 years?

In this century, there are like 10 events when either the FDR or CVR was not recovered, and 3 of those were 9/11 planes destroyed beyond anything seen before.

another was a stolen plane that left some field in Angola with all the ADS and other avionics shut off. the plane was never found.

MK1602 crashed on take off due to settings being wrong, they found out that in the investigation, the CVR would have done very little good to the investigators

 

RDG

Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
2,039
Likes
937
Location
Western, MA
They already have in flight wifi... i feel like easily could piggy back off that
Yeah cause commercial flying passengers don't already complain enough about the speed of the internet while traveling 400 MPH through the air in a metal tube.


Why does it have to be satcom? Because of the amount of data? Overseas coverage? For less than $100 you can set up a station that tracks planes overhead, with a decent range. Why couldn't they send moar data over that same system? Genuinely curious.
Overseas would be the biggest reason of course.
Most of the air-to-ground data systems (non satcom) right now aren't setup to move huge amounts of data and even those those are wouldn't be certified for any kind of safety of flight serves. GoGo's new L5 network is probably the fastest air-to-ground network available.. it tops out around 10Mbps I think but is only available in CONUS and above 10,000 ft.

I'm sure somewhere, someone could come up with a system in place that'll work... no doubt.
But it isn't going to piggy back on the systems we already use... there just not designed for it.
You can't have thousands of jets sending out massive amounts of data through VHF... its just not going to happen.
 

Baby Billy

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
1,382
Likes
1,253
Location
New England
Yeah cause commercial flying passengers don't already complain enough about the speed of the internet while traveling 400 MPH through the air in a metal tube.




Overseas would be the biggest reason of course.
Most of the air-to-ground data systems (non satcom) right now aren't setup to move huge amounts of data and even those those are wouldn't be certified for any kind of safety of flight serves. GoGo's new L5 network is probably the fastest air-to-ground network available.. it tops out around 10Mbps I think but is only available in CONUS and above 10,000 ft.

I'm sure somewhere, someone could come up with a system in place that'll work... no doubt.
But it isn't going to piggy back on the systems we already use... there just not designed for it.
You can't have thousands of jets sending out massive amounts of data through VHF... its just not going to happen.
Ok so it's a size problem. Makes sense.
 

Fixxah

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
29,833
Likes
9,231
Location
Norwood mostly.
Think of how big the NSA server buildings are and they only grab phone calle etc.

Now imagine thousands of airliners in the air at one time along with a moving signal. Recorders are always the go-to for many reasons. Those shows are sobering.
 

Broccoli Iglesias

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
24,166
Likes
17,450
All they need is real time tracking. Or something every 30 seconds that no one can disable. Everything else can be found at the crash site.

But I dont think anything was implemented after that Asian crash no one found.
 

appraiser

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
10,694
Likes
5,079
Here is a picture of all the civilian planes in the sky on a Weds night (now)

This is with fewer flights because of Covid.

That is a lot of data to manage, and as I asked above why?

99.9999% of the time if there is a loss of hull, either the CVR or FDR is recovered and most of the time it is both

flaware.png
 

Baby Billy

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
1,382
Likes
1,253
Location
New England
Here is a picture of all the civilian planes in the sky on a Weds night (now)

This is with fewer flights because of Covid.

That is a lot of data to manage, and as I asked above why?

99.9999% of the time if there is a loss of hull, either the CVR or FDR is recovered and most of the time it is both

View attachment 390584
Kinda like backing up a computer, right?
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
4,720
Likes
1,715
Yeah cause commercial flying passengers don't already complain enough about the speed of the internet while traveling 400 MPH through the air in a metal tube.




Overseas would be the biggest reason of course.
Most of the air-to-ground data systems (non satcom) right now aren't setup to move huge amounts of data and even those those are wouldn't be certified for any kind of safety of flight serves. GoGo's new L5 network is probably the fastest air-to-ground network available.. it tops out around 10Mbps I think but is only available in CONUS and above 10,000 ft.

I'm sure somewhere, someone could come up with a system in place that'll work... no doubt.
But it isn't going to piggy back on the systems we already use... there just not designed for it.
You can't have thousands of jets sending out massive amounts of data through VHF... its just not going to happen.
I mean audio is only 95kbps on an active HD voice call...yeah yeah I know latency, jitter, blah blah, I'm a voice engineer. But you could easily piggy back that its not enough bandwidth to cause anyone's Netflix to be any crappier.
 

RDG

Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
2,039
Likes
937
Location
Western, MA
All they need is real time tracking. Or something every 30 seconds that no one can disable. Everything else can be found at the crash site.

But I dont think anything was implemented after that Asian crash no one found.
Actually one thing was, or at least that affected me... The little underwater beacon locator that's attached to CVR or FDR previously would emit a signal for 30 days once it got wet.
The new standard is 90 days. I believe this was already in the works before the crash but the crash pushed it along.


I mean audio is only 95kbps on an active HD voice call...yeah yeah I know latency, jitter, blah blah, I'm a voice engineer. But you could easily piggy back that its not enough bandwidth to cause anyone's Netflix to be any crappier.
We're not talking Voice...that we would the cockpit voice recorder
We're talking data.. Flight Data Recorder. Hundreds of data points recorded every second. I think the starndard is 88 or 91 parameters. Most exceed that.
 

RDG

Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
2,039
Likes
937
Location
Western, MA
PS it took 66 satellites just to be able to track planes over places like the North Atlantic and other open expanses of water away from land recieving stations, and that is just for positioning, try to do huge amounts of data

Satellite plane-tracking goes global
That just uses the Iridium Satellite network. The 66 number gave it away.... they actually have like 68 or 70 up there.. couple spares in case of failures. Those guys know what their doing.
Those things have been up there for a long time. They actually cover the entire globe. There slowly being replaced by the Iridium next gen stuff....
We use them for voice and all cockpit safety services when out of radio coverage.
 

RDG

Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
2,039
Likes
937
Location
Western, MA
I did just find this thought. looks like the idea is in development .


The companies will jointly develop the hardware for the new black boxes, and Honeywell will modernize the software capabilities for easier access to real-time data during flight. This will provide aircraft owners, operators and manufacturers with new voice and flight data recording options to help decrease aircraft downtime through better predictive maintenance and, in the unlikely event of an emergency, help with the subsequent investigation. Further, operators will benefit from real-time data streaming and cloud-upload capabilities, enabled by Honeywell’s Connected Aircraft software, which allows for the swift and remote retrieval of data from the aircraft for storage or analysis.

edit: more info in case anyone is intersted
 
Top Bottom