True, realtime wireless communication is available globally, but it's not truly global. There are plenty of places where coverage is spotty at best. It's also a very complex system that it tends to break down in isolated spots from time to time. What happens if an airplane happens to crash in a location where a cellular tower was recently destroyed by a lightning strike or fire, etc.? Does the FAA just toss up their hands and say "Sorry, I guess we'll never know. The data just never got recorded." Sometimes simple is better. Black boxes have proven themselves time and again. They're simple and they work. If we can recover them from the bottom of the ocean (think TWA 800) then we can recover them from virtually any airline crash.
@IphtashuFitz: By beaming data to a central monitoring computer system, I'm guessing that realtime statistical software could determine likelihood of crash based upon data from the point takeoff - right now we're sort of checking results after the fact.
This paragraph from the original article was really interesting:
"It may be that cockpit recorders disappear altogether in the future. Technology that transmits an aircraft's voice and data to hardware on the ground is already being used by NASA, and may become more common moving forward."
So, the real question is, what the hell are pilots doing in there that they don't want recorded?
And, its not like I'm accusing them of having orgies or doing blow. But I think about why I wouldn't want a camera in my office. And that's all the time I spend not working. Reading Giz, checking my email, sending text messages. Sure it's a negligible amount of time and mostly counts for two 10 minute breaks in a day. But I don't want the person flying my airplane to be hitting refresh every 30 seconds during the Giz Apple Liveblog.
@mcjake: I think it's that they are under a strict orders/rules/regulations about minute things, like talking while flying, and if something Act Of God happens, even if it had nothing to do with it, they could be found liable for it b/c they broke a rule.
I also think it's b/c as they scream like little girls as they crash, they want their family/friends to think they died battling to the end.
Wireless communication might be available, but there are some times where planes crash in places where the only thing available is satellite, and that isn't exactly free after purchase of the hardware. Plus, this still works in the event of a radio failure, haven't you ever noticed (in stories, I don't know about actual percentages or anything) that the pilot's radio seems to cut off and they're never seen again?
@sfokevin: Well, then it's a great idea, as idiot's who may wander the site will never find it, while the trained investigators will know what to look for.
@sfokevin: WHAT? So you think search teams, teams whose job it is to look for this type of thing, are going to make assumptions based on the NAME of something rather than relying on their training and experience?
Do you people think before you post? Aren't nerds who read this blog supposed to be smart?
@bobman1235: There was the famous case where the pilots yoke was never found b/c the search crew thought they were looking for the "pilot's yellow spherical part of an egg that is surrounded by the albumen" and thought the plane's head mean the opposit of it's tail.
@BPA-Free_GitEmSteveDave: Also, in bye-gone years, the information was encoded/stored on a reel of metal wire. They did have problems with wire stretching.
"But even with as neat as the black box may be from the standpoint of apocalyptic durability, it seems like a dated idea in an era when realtime wireless communication is available globally."
So they have come up with a perfect means of wireless communication that is not effected by weather and or signal degradation, now have they?
@MadCrazy: Or turf-side system outages? Or the fact that, frankly, we really don't need a metric crap-ton of flight data recorded from every plane that leaves the ground and lands safely at the other end.
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
"It may be that cockpit recorders disappear altogether in the future. Technology that transmits an aircraft's voice and data to hardware on the ground is already being used by NASA, and may become more common moving forward."
So, the real question is, what the hell are pilots doing in there that they don't want recorded?
And, its not like I'm accusing them of having orgies or doing blow. But I think about why I wouldn't want a camera in my office. And that's all the time I spend not working. Reading Giz, checking my email, sending text messages. Sure it's a negligible amount of time and mostly counts for two 10 minute breaks in a day. But I don't want the person flying my airplane to be hitting refresh every 30 seconds during the Giz Apple Liveblog.
03/06/09
I also think it's b/c as they scream like little girls as they crash, they want their family/friends to think they died battling to the end.
03/06/09
03/06/09
IIRC, the recordings are always property of the NTSB, and possibly not allowed to be released under FOIA. I could be wrong.
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
Do you people think before you post? Aren't nerds who read this blog supposed to be smart?
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
So they have come up with a perfect means of wireless communication that is not effected by weather and or signal degradation, now have they?
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/07/09
Or turf-side system outages? Or the fact that, frankly, we really don't need a metric crap-ton of flight data recorded from every plane that leaves the ground and lands safely at the other end.