Blogs and Stories
The Myth of the Black Box
While searchers scour the Atlantic Ocean for Flight 447’s black box, Clive Irving explains how aviation came to depend on this idiosyncratic recording method—and why the Air France debacle proves we need to give it up.
France’s chief of air accident investigations, Paul-Louis Arslanian, held aloft a cylinder the size of a small flashlight. Sounding exasperated, he said, “This is what we are trying to find…in the Atlantic.” He was talking about the sonar beacon linked to the black box of Air France Flight 447. Depending on its location, the beacon—which for up to 30 days sends out a signal to indicate its location—and black box could be lying in a trench as much as several miles below the ocean surface. Black box into black hole. So why are we still so dependent on black boxes (they are not black and they are not boxes, but data recorders about the size of a carry-on bag) to yield the definitive answers to an airplane crash?
An iPod has thousands of times the computing power of the Apollo moon lander. The tough part is not collecting data but how to get it out of the airplane in real time.
They were developed in the 1960s. The idea was not simply to collect all the data critical to the behavior of an airliner, but to entomb it in a casing that could survive the impact of a crash and a fire. The principle that all the vital information should go down with the airplane made sense then, but not now. An iPod has thousands of times the computing power of the Apollo moon lander. The tough part is not collecting data but how to get it out of the airplane in real time.
Compression and speed are the key. Just as all the info in a digital photo is compressed into a Jpeg file and emailed, the onboard computer on an airliner has to be able to compress and send data in bursts to a satellite, which relays to it a land-based computer. This is already done aboard NASA’s space shuttles, which don’t have black boxes.
The disappearance of Flight 447 combines the problem, finding the black box, with a glimpse of the solution. The robot messages sent from the Airbus A330, as part of its standard onboard monitoring system, do not come close to providing a complete picture, but they do prove how valuable instant monitoring is. Right now, for example, these systems are already used not only to track an airplane’s performance but also infringements of flying rules. If a pilot turns too sharply at takeoff, or makes a hard landing, it is recorded and he gets questioned about it by the airline after landing.
International airline regulatory bodies are notoriously slow to agree to common standards for new technology. The U.S. Congress is similarly retarded: A bill that would upgrade the existing flight data recorders has been stuck in a House committee since 2005. You would think that any Silicon Valley nerd could write a program that would transform the whole technology of crash investigations. Moreover, it’s not too fanciful to imagine going from the proactive to the pre-emptive. Most crashes (probably including Flight 447) are caused by an unlucky sequence and confluence of events. Suppose the next generation of gizmos not only track those vital signs but warn the crew when they see an imminent flat-liner?
Xtra Insight: Before 447: Seven Other Aviation Mysteries
Xtra Insight: Clive Irving on Flight 447's 24 error messages.
Clive Irving is senior consulting editor at Condé Nast Traveler, specializing in aviation.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
The New Cockpit Threat
Clive Irving is senior consulting editor at Condé Nast Traveler, specializing in aviation.
What to Know About Airline Safety Records
Clive Irving is senior consulting editor at Condé Nast Traveler, specializing in aviation.
How Turbulence Can Turn Deadly
Clive Irving is senior consulting editor at Condé Nast Traveler, specializing in aviation.
The black box's emergency locating device (ELT) automatically begins transmitting when the aircraft/box is exposed to 5 G's of force (and/or water immersion). In addition, they are supposed to be able to transmit in up to 20,000 ft of water with a transmit range of 2 miles, and can only transmit for 30 days.
What this basically all means - the searchers are screwed.
My bet is that they'll never find it, considering it is probably in one of those trenches that is deeper than 20,000 ft.
Dear Mr. Irving,
Again, poorly written article, insinuating that an iPod-like device is the anecdotal solution to a device that has proven time-and-again to survive the worst of crashes. I imagine this proposed "magical" recording and transmitting device you want could probably be done, however the costs would be exorbitant, and people complain about the price of airline tickets more than they do about gasoline.
Love,
your favorite US Air Force pilot
Please help me understand this. Why couldn't Mr. Irving's iPod-like device work? Why can't this iPod be made AT LEAST AS impervious to damage as the current "black box"? And why coundn't it be made bouyant and infinitely more retrievable? And what would render its costs "exorbitant" ( when you weigh this iPod's cost against the cost of attempting to retrieve a current black box-- or the costs inherent in NOT retrieving that box)? What, in your estimation, is the dollar amount of "exorbitant" as measured against the loss of human lives in these accidents? Just trying to understand you, not mock you.
My problem is that the black box is 100% effective (if found) in discovering the chain-of-events that caused this crash (black box: ELT/Flight Data Recorder/Cockpit Voice Recorder). If and when they are found, they are extremely effective in describing all of the variables and factors that were at play prior to an accident occuring.
On the C-17 we have a similar SATCOM/ACARS/AOC system that automatically sends our flight data to Scott AFB, IL, however, 1 in 10 flights, the system has failed. A 90% success rate is good, but it should be 100%, and the black box has proven its worth.
And I apologize for not answering your last question, but I found this for you from a New York Times article:
"The families or loved ones of civilians killed on Sept. 11 received, on average, $3.1 million in government and charitable awards. The families of those who died in uniform that day -- including police officers and firefighters -- received more, their average compensation exceeding $4.2 million. Insurance payments to businesses victimized by the terror attacks, for property damage alone, totaled $7.5 billion."
Trust me, it can be expensive maintain some of that equipment.
I agree also....black boxes are useless. There are SO MANY pieces of equipment that are outdated on modern aircraft that it's ridiculous. Look at the advancements in glass cockpit technology. Are you telling me we can't figure out a way to transmit data that is decoupled from the device that may fail?
HOW HARD is it to add image recording devices on aircraft? Spy cameras that fit in your tie are $50 bucks each. A w-fi data recording device that can receive and transmit would maybe cost a few hundred to a few thousand dollars to install and would have a FAR higher bandwidth than any black box around.
AND ....a simple stupid $100 GPS unit mounted in the dash in front of the pilots measuring ground speed and altitude with its own independent back up battery source WOULD HAVE SAVED the AF447 flight from diving and crashing if indeed that were due to pilot disorientation.
I'll tell you what's going on...the damned airlines are too cheap to spend a few extra hundred thousand dollars (or even less) to install simple, stupid electronic devices we use everyday that gives us more information than we need. The technology is out there...I know I design it.
Signed...your favorite NASA design engineer
I agree wholeheartedly Mr Irving. Black boxes belong to the dark ages of information famine. The hunt for a black box many thousands of feet below sea level seems an absurdly expensive and unpractical method of accident investigation in this day and age (indeed, instead of emitting a locator bleep, it should emit a signal which streams all the data that it holds in its memory).
While satellite real time datalink systems are far from tried and tested, events such as the flight 447 tragedy should impress upon the aviation industry the need for such systems to be fast tracked and implemented as soon as possible.
Based on the limited relayed data, this seems to be a combination of pilot error and faulty aircraft design. Pilots are advised to give thunderstorm cells a very wide berth, something like 10 nautical miles. Equatorial cells are especially more violent than tropical ones, so even more reason to avoid them by a wider margin. Flying into one would be not unlike hitting a brick wall of hail, icing and violent draughts. The crew should have detoured or even turned back rather than risk entering a squall line of these killer storms. As for for aircraft design, no size of storm cell should render aircraft sensors useless. This should have been apparent in airworthiness trials before certification. It is well documented that the airbus had issues with its pitot sensors and that these were not rectified immediately is a damning indictment. There are a lot of question marks which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Correct, and a more damning report (as to how bad the weather really was) we are being given at our Air Force base is coming from this website:
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/
Mr. Irving, all I am saying is that every time you write about this Air France crash, I just get the feeling that your senior editor skills in the area of "specializing in aviation" makes it appears as though you really are "Special," like Short Bus "Special." It is as though you are writing these pieces for teenagers that want everything to work like their iPhone and Xbox.
Sometimes those intimately involved in a field become so blinded by how things are or how things have always been that they fail to understand what could be or how things ought to be. In an age of global information networks and continuous streaming data, the technology is readily available to do away with black boxes. To imply that the reporter for this article "insinuated" that an iPod-like device was the solution to this problem is poor argumentation. The author merely stated that computing power has increased exponentially since black box technology was designed. To imply otherwise seems disingenuous at best. Yes, it's impressive that black boxes can survive crashes of incredible destruction, but the point here is, is that even necessary anymore? Or fine, leave the black boxes on the planes as a back up, but why not build something that streams data in real time and make the black boxes completely unnecessary. It isn't magic, it's logic. He doesn't say it's likely to happen given the backwardness of the airlines and government oversight in this area, but it is worth thinking about. Unless you're a dinosaur.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! I've been saying that for days! A cell phone can do it. Well in the name of heck, can't a muli-million dollar air-plane at 38,000 feet. (far closer to the information space networks)
Absolutely!
I'm reading through c17Pilot's comments, and the only thing in there that is not a personal insult is the claim that there are 20,000 foot trenches in the area of the crash. Not according to Google Earth.
my apologies on the depth, i had read an article that mentioned the depth in that area to get as deep at 6000-8000meters
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
huh?
huh?... to the tenth power
Setting aside the questions about how to improve on the black box, why don't the current ones float?
LOL... that is so simple it's funny.
Funny or not...I wonder about this myself.
because their density is greater than that of water...
Sorry I couldn't help myself :)
C17Pilot:
I think your comments are a little "off course". I think Mr. Irving does a good job questioning the viability of our current systems in aircraft data recording. I too am a pilot, and I think his articles are much better written than most. Instead of being another typical poster with negative comments - submit your own ideas.
It seems like you really have it out for this poor guy. Every time I read his articles, I see your "Mr. Know-it-all" rebuttals. If you really ARE a pilot in the Air Force flying C17's, then I would image you would welcome any articles written in the field of aviation that questions our safety practices.
You are a pilot though....right?
Yeah, I'm over at McChord AFB, WA
Our bosses and SIM instructors have been talking about this a lot.
If you would like to see the briefing website that we recieved that is extremely in-depth and points out ACTUAL reasons as to what caused the crash, it will make you more angry the next time you read Clive Irving's "special aviation" journalism.
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/
I'd like to echo C17Pilot's concerns about the poor writing on the part of the author here. Irving would have us believe that the same Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) that were created in the 60s are around today, that no improvements have been made to them. Not true.
Also, based on the standard amount of air traffic around the world at any given time, how many satellites would be needed to provide the required bandwidth for his proposed system? The cost-to-benefit seems incredibly too large to launch more satellites into geostationary orbit and retrofit every certified airliner. His proposal makes about as much sense in the real world as telling the engineers and designers "Just make a plane that will never crash. Ever."
Something similar could be phased in slowly but I'm not fully convinced of its benefits or feasability either. One could develop a system that opens a satellite link whenever an emergency alarm was triggered, but like I said I'm not too terribly sure how that would play out when a plane is breaking up in the air.
I beg to differ with you tnflyboy. What Mr Irving is talking about is not fanciful science fiction. SATCOM flight data relay systems have been in existence for the last 10 years... take that from an airline pilot. Even Flt 447 had one! Although not all flight parameters are transmitted. The system is not fully developed yet and still is in development stage. There is no problem with transporting billions of bits of data on SATCOM.. that is already done with satelite TV stations and mobile phones. Tetrabytes are not a problem in this age tnflyboy. As for feasability, wouldn't it be much better to have all data of a crash on hand at engineering HQ rather than send submarines on a wild goose chase? Flight data recorders are more or less the same as they were in the 60's, Mr Irving is correct. They still use the same archaic data recoring systems of mechanical tape transport as they did in their inception. Mr Irving is doing a good job, now you leave him alone.
"Also, based on the standard amount of air traffic around the world at any given time, how many satellites would be needed to provide the required bandwidth for his proposed system? The cost-to-benefit seems incredibly too large to launch more satellites into geostationary orbit and retrofit every certified airliner."
Ok, good point. But it really is not rocket science. If a cell phone can do it, so can an airplane. (exaggeration) With data compression and the fact the electronics are very cheap to upgrade and replace... I just can't find that argument to hold water. (At least not for long...) Where there is a need, it will find a way.
The only thing going for flight data recorders is the integrity of the information they contain. It is an indestructable orange box where vital accident data is stored safely from damage or manipulation. Have you ever seen one being transported to an analysis lab? Its almost as if it is under armed guard. So much is at stake with the information it contains that no airline or plane manufacturer would want that data compromised. It could mean the difference between being exhonerated or many millions of dollars in legal compensation. Now when you have all this information being transmitted as in Datalink Monitoring, the data can be altered, intercepted, corrupted or misused. The data has to be failsafe legally as well to stand up in court. I feel it will be some time before a standard is adopted in remote flight monitoring. Until then we have to rely on the trusty old black box and its "find me if you can" antics.
C17 Pilot and tnflyboy are correct. Blogger55 is wrong - kinda like our resident "aviation expert" Jive Clive.
Flight Data Recorders and Cockpit Voice Recorders have come a long way since their development. It is not the same 60's era box that Jive Clive alleges. And no, Blogger55, it is NOT mechanical tape transport; it's solid state. You say: "Mr Irving is doing a good job, now you leave him alone." Are you serious? This is sham journalism.
I'll grant this: There is always room for improvement and the FAA, Congress, and NTSB should strive for better. But the piece takes the typical attitude that we have to blame someone and we have to blame them NOW for this accident. Can't we just let the investigation unfold?
One other (typical of Clive) error in this article. He says: "Right now, for example, these systems are already used not only to track an airplane's performance but also infringements of flying rules. If a pilot turns too sharply at takeoff, or makes a hard landing, it is recorded and he gets questioned about it by the airline after landing." Wrong Clive. He's referring to FOQA (Flight Operational Quality Assurance). [Do a Wikipedia search.] This data collection is done anonymously and does not identify pilots. That information is stripped from the flight so that airlines cannot use it for punishment or retribution. For any of you non-aviation types out there, if you think that's a bad idea, you definitely do not know airline management very well.
Keep tryin' Clive.
It may well be that there are modern FDC's with solid state memories, but you are nit-picking for the sake of it. Mr Irving is talking about the futility of a system that cannot be recovered after an accident and you are talking about the little improvements made to this futile system! What's your point?
You are right, documented flight data is not used to question pilots' flying style, but I am sure Mr Irving, not being a pilot himself, was misinformed on a trivial point. However, I find his writing well balanced and informative on the subject overall... far from the sham journalism you wrongly perceive.
Stop tryin' Robodog
C17, you have the benefit of having the facts on your side when it comes ot criticizing Mr. Irving's writing. It won't be long before he starts tweeting his articles. Heck, why not just write a headline and quit there? This is symptomatic of a larger problem at the Daily Beast. Sloppy, rushed writing with virtually no editing is routine on this site. It's particularly shameful given Tina Brown's background as the editor of the New Yorker maazine.
You're right. Don't blame Jive Clive; blame the Daily Beast.
Quite wrong Super7, I have the facts on MY side too and I find Mr Irving perefectly lucid. If you have gripes against Mr Irving or the Daily Beast, keep it to yourself, it has nothing to do wit the topic at hand.
haha thanks, I wouldn't mind writing his articles considering I'd do it for for free. I already told Mr. Irving to write me next time he even considers writing an article about aviation.
i actually really like the idea of an ipod like device that just transmits all the needed info right away. I only have a couple of concerns about such a device. first off, how are you going to power such a device for a sufficient period of time for it to transmit all of its data in case of say an electrical failure? what if the transmitter is damaged somehow during the flight that ultimately crashed and it was unable to send its information? all of your ideas while valid are essentially science fiction. now there is nothing wrong with that, and for the most part science fiction writers have dreampt up technologies decades even centuries before they were actually created. the problem we're working with here is that the so called black box is at the moment the safest most efficient way of recording/documenting all information on a moment by moment basis with the included survivability necessary incase the worst happens. i'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're not a developer, otherwise you wouldnt just casually throw out the "Scilicon Valley nerd could write a program that would transform the whole technology of crash investigations." idea. writing a program of that magnitude would require far more tehn 1 person. the amount of variables and calculations needed to support a system like that by todays standards is outrageous. my suggestion is a little more reasearch and a little less fantasy when you try to give suggestions.
Great Link C17 pilot http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/af447/ which goes a long way to providing clues and scenarios.
No one is rushing to judgement, but there are a lot of Flt 447 relatives' questions unanswered and a lot of nervous Airbus passengers too wanting answers. until the facts come home, all we have to go on is the smoke.
"No one is rushing to judgement," I must be reading different articles than you are Blogger55. I think that is EXACTLY what Jive Clive is doing. And I think that for someone to portray himself as an "aviation expert", he should be an expert. He is not.
"until the facts come home, all we have to go on is the smoke." So, yeah - let's just speculate. It's fun, hunh? Never mind if we disparage everybody involved along the way.
I say again: This is sham journalism - endemic nowadays.
You're missing the point....the point of the article isn't to speculate....but to shine the light on a antiquated technology that should not be in aircraft anymore.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.