Ah, the satisfaction

[EconomyClass]

I gotta admit it, to see one after another of my purely logical concepts ofthe right way forward adopted is pretty satisfying, especially in light of seeing them shot down by people opposing logic with "experience". I saw the submarine search as a problematic response and suggested the kind of research machines usually used for poking around in the deep. The AF447 search is in its "next phase" in which submarines listening will be replaced by more purposeful methods.

I said it was stupid to wait to get the fllight data till its sitting at the ocean's bottom. Now Airbus is looking at realtime data capture. I wonder if they will really find it so terribly impossible as the voices of experience have been saying. I'm betting the price of an A330 and legal settlements with the families of 228 dead passengers that they won't.

Data input. What you wanna bet the validation is strengthened. They've already said takeoff thrust needs at least double independent calculation. It is just so in keeping with critical numbers everywhere in life. I know that from dealing with data errors all my life. But logic isfollowed outside the air travel industry. Perhaps now with this many lives and billions in equipment, the simple safeguards that business universally uses will leak into aviation.

I eagerly await further signs that logic is not dead in aviation.

[MCM]

I saw the submarine search as a problematic response and suggested the kind of research machines usually used for poking around in the deep

This has been done in every situation when submarines have been unable to find the black box recorders. You aren't coming up with anything new. I don't know of anyone here who has suggested they would do otherwise... only doubted that it would actually find the black boxes.

Now Airbus is looking at realtime data capture. I wonder if they will really find it so terribly impossible as the voices of experience have been saying. I'm betting the price of an A330 and legal settlements with the families of 228 dead passengers that they won't.

Real time data capture is a good idea, if it is practical. The "naysayers" here are saying that it is a good idea, BUT, it is impractical. I hardly think that Airbus looking into the subject proves you are right and that we are wrong! Of course Airbus are researching it... they have to. Save your gloating when Airbus actually ACTIVATES such a system.

Data input. What you wanna bet the validation is strengthened. They've already said takeoff thrust needs at least double independent calculation. It is just so in keeping with critical numbers everywhere in life.

Here's an idea.

Takeoff Data in most airlines around the world is already double checked, often triple checked, and sometimes quadrouple checked.

This is not counting the FMC's built in error checking, which despite your assertions, already exists.

They did manage to find another hole in the system on the EK incident. This was in fact DUE to the introduction of technology which was supposed to reduce the chance of this type of incident. They've identified a system failure (and by system I mean human/machine), and no doubt it will be corrected. Emirates will change their policy, and operators will take it into account when introducing EFB's to their flight decks.

The failure here was the fact that only ONE pilot did the takeoff calculations because they only had ONE EFB. THAT is the issue.

[B757300]

I gotta admit it, to see one after another of my purely logical concepts ofthe right way forward adopted is pretty satisfying, especially in light of seeing them shot down by people opposing logic with "experience".

Right, Airbus is doing this because you suggested it.

[P3_Super_Bee]

But won't be as good as the actual boxes. It is already known ACARS loses SATCOM uplink quite OFTEN, so what good would only part of the FDR/CVR? One of the reasons why its not done now. As stated in the AF447 thread, Just with the issue of the SATCOM needing line of site, with the satellite, P-3s have put SATCOM antennas on the sides of the aircraft to help prevent uplink/downlink drops from SATCOM. Not to mention the expense in just operating the system. It's a pretty penny. Jaw dropping price tag..

“It’s accidents like this that get people to think out of the box,” said Brian T. Gallagher, the director of public affairs for DRS Technologies of Parsippany, N.J. For the past 25 years, his company has been installing data recorders on the outside of military airplanes like the F-18 and on helicopters carrying oil field workers in the North Sea. On impact in a crash, the recorder, which is encased in an airfoil, flies away from the aircraft. If the plane sinks in the water, the recorder will float. A transmitter signals its location using GPS.

From: NY TIMES ARTICLE

These were the biggest pieces of junk going. Look at them funny and they'd shoot off the plane. Relibility was so good, we actually had real FDR's put in our planes. All the ones on P-3's have been deactivated.

[EconomyClass]

In post #109, June 2, of the AF thread, theoddkiwi first mentions real time FDR/CVR data transmission as a concept that was already under consideration. The idea was then further discussed on that thread. It was a fairly reasonable leap to go from transmission of ACARS, and the way that has been used in the AF crash, to the possibility of FDR/CVR transmission.

And thoroughly shot down as it was when I asked the question? Fact is I've read a number of articles that also have called it "impractical". I have a feeling practicality is taking on a different appearance as the heat on AF and Airbus builds up.

[EconomyClass]

Right, Airbus is doing this because you suggested it.

Ah the that's he serious intellectual spirit I'm' looking for. No, they are doing it because it is logical, a quality sorely lacking here but perhaps more prevalent among those who aren't sitting in the bleachers preening.

[EconomyClass]

Yeh, that's right. "They'll do it but WE know it will be pointless and nothing will be found." That's the kind of expertise the world needs a lot more of. Trade in that cracked crystal ball. It is giving you misinformation.

[bob12312357]

I know that from dealing with data errors all my life. But logic isfollowed outside the air travel industry. .

YOu ever stop and wonder if you taking another breath is an error. I certainly think it is...
It's simple buissness. A buissness with profit margins as slim as airlines can not afford to spend billions on having a plan for each and every contingency,at least in this economy. PEOPLE DIE! Thats the way the world works. You can never elminate death in dailey activites. Crossing the street,being a construction or sanitation worker, or driving a car is far more dangerous then flying in a commercial plane. Why aren't you more concerned with the obesity epidemic? How about making cars safer? What about cheerleading? It's more dangerous then football. All that we can do is try and prevent what we know is a problem,and learn from every accident to prevent it from happening again. The only problem is there are so many ways for a thin shelled metal cylinder,packed with explosives,crammed with people,and using technology and science less then 30 or so years old to fail. Then if you eliminate machine error,theres still the far more prevalent human error. Would you be willing to pay 9000 dollars for a coach ticket to Australia if you were told there were search and rescue crew ready for anything at the airport 24 hours a day/7 days a week,capable of rescuing 300 people at a time within an hour for a 100 mile radius of the airport? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Leftseat86]

I think you should make another thread about this.

[W7PSK]

I can definitely confirm we do not make decisions on data transmissions or any other aircraft safety/functionality/cost/benifit based on postings from someone named economy class on a forum board.