Exclusive: SFO near miss might have triggered ‘greatest aviation disaster in history’
May 4, 2018, 11:58 am
#827
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 103
Step 1, you need Airbus/Boeing/etc. to change the designs of their aircraft types, most of which have decades-old designs, and (re-)certify those design changes. At best existing recording equipment can accommodate the update with a SW/HW (more memory) update. At worst completely new equipment would be needed. There is likely exactly no appetite for incurring that cost by the OEMs, particularly because of ...
Step 2, you need customers of Airbus/Boeing/etc. (i.e. airlines) to *elect to purchase the design update for fleets of dozens or hundreds of aircraft. There is likely exactly no appetite for incurring that cost by the operators.
* I say elect but in theory domestic aviation authorities could impose the update by issuing an airworthiness directive or something, but such a move would require the decision to be based on strong enough concerns over the safety of the flying public, which is based on known problems or events of significant enough severity to make it viable, not to mention harmonization among authorities around the globe (the biggest ones at least) since no single authority would go it alone and penalize its industry in such a manner. In summary, not a chance.
May 4, 2018, 12:42 pm
#828
Formerly known as newbie elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,927
Great post yowspotter, I believe there are 2 hour solid state units that are approved for most commercial aircraft, just a question of $$$ as you say.
EASA is mandating these changes for 2019, as usual Canada will be decades behind.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...on-new-timings
EASA is mandating these changes for 2019, as usual Canada will be decades behind.
1) Cockpit voice recorder (CVR):
- All 30 minutes recording duration CVRs installed on aeroplanes must be replaced by 2 hours recording duration CVRs by January 2019;
- All CVRs installed on aeroplanes and helicopters and recording on magnetic tape must be replaced by solid-state CVRs by January 2019;
- Aeroplanes with a MCTOM of more than 27 000 kg and manufactured as of January 2021: minimum CVR recording duration must be 25 hours.
May 4, 2018, 12:58 pm
#829
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,347
Leaving aside whether it's reasonable to record someone performing a safety critical function, there are very simple technological solutions. Just encrypt the recording with keys owned by the OEM or regulator (FAA, Transport Canada, etc), so that it is impossible for the airline to access them surreptitiously outside of a bona fide incident investigation.
"It is an offence to listen to the contents of a CVR of an aircraft registered in Canada except by or under direction of Transport Canada for the investigation of an accident or incident." (IANAL, but you get the idea)
Done.
May 4, 2018, 1:32 pm
#830
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, Bonvoy Life Plat
Posts: 2,803
Your third point is wrong, because by the time they got to the gate, the CVR had been overwritten. The only thing everyone in this thread agrees on is that 30 minutes is too damn short. 30 days would be more reasonable. Regulations from the 70s on technology are just stupid. Yes, getting more than 30 minutes in a black box 40 years ago was hard. Today, I'd actually be more surprised if the 30 minute limit was physical than if it was something like "byte buffer = new byte[SOME_SIZE_THAT_CAN_HOLD_30_MINUTES]", specifically to adhere to the regulation, even if the physical storage medium has been drastically improved.
May 4, 2018, 1:44 pm
#832
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, Bonvoy Life Plat
Posts: 2,803
Then cost. How much could the liability really be if they Tenerifed 3 out of four of those sitting ducks?
I will say I'm certain AC759 is top-of-mind for AC legal given it was Freudian-slipped on another matter.
I will say I'm certain AC759 is top-of-mind for AC legal given it was Freudian-slipped on another matter.
May 4, 2018, 1:45 pm
#833
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: YVR
Programs: UA Premier Platinum
Posts: 3,759
Exactly. It's not hard to solve that problem. Even if you do it through legislation rather than technical reasons.
"It is an offence to listen to the contents of a CVR of an aircraft registered in Canada except by or under direction of Transport Canada for the investigation of an accident or incident." (IANAL, but you get the idea)
Done.
"It is an offence to listen to the contents of a CVR of an aircraft registered in Canada except by or under direction of Transport Canada for the investigation of an accident or incident." (IANAL, but you get the idea)
Done.
This isn't a hard problem to address.
May 4, 2018, 7:04 pm
#834
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
However what many here seem for be ignoring is that CVR/FDR data are used for accident investigations, there was no accident. As this was an incident and there are multiple other sources of information available to investigate the incident, no need to CVR review.
Previous investigations have proven that FDR data is far more valuable than CVR data when investigating accidents.
At some point over the next 20 years or so, certain critical FDR parameters will be live streamed to the ground. There are certain aircraft that have a recording device on then that can (at the operators option) send certain selectable flight parameters to an operator ground station when certain type of flight envelope events occur. These data sets can not be used in an investigation however until sufficient prognostic data sets have been received and evaluated, that evaluation period is expected to be in the range of ten years or so.
And yes, the privacy factor - at the behest of the pilot unions - is a very significant consideration.
May 4, 2018, 7:06 pm
#835
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
There's not need for any sort of seal, the CVR and FDR are located in a section of the aircraft that are not easily accessible and require taking the A/C out of service in order to access.
May 4, 2018, 7:17 pm
#836
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
Cost.
Step 1, you need Airbus/Boeing/etc. to change the designs of their aircraft types, most of which have decades-old designs, and (re-)certify those design changes. At best existing recording equipment can accommodate the update with a SW/HW (more memory) update. At worst completely new equipment would be needed. There is likely exactly no appetite for incurring that cost by the OEMs, particularly because of ...
Step 2, you need customers of Airbus/Boeing/etc. (i.e. airlines) to *elect to purchase the design update for fleets of dozens or hundreds of aircraft. There is likely exactly no appetite for incurring that cost by the operators.
* I say elect but in theory domestic aviation authorities could impose the update by issuing an airworthiness directive or something, but such a move would require the decision to be based on strong enough concerns over the safety of the flying public, which is based on known problems or events of significant enough severity to make it viable, not to mention harmonization among authorities around the globe (the biggest ones at least) since no single authority would go it alone and penalize its industry in such a manner. In summary, not a chance.
Step 1, you need Airbus/Boeing/etc. to change the designs of their aircraft types, most of which have decades-old designs, and (re-)certify those design changes. At best existing recording equipment can accommodate the update with a SW/HW (more memory) update. At worst completely new equipment would be needed. There is likely exactly no appetite for incurring that cost by the OEMs, particularly because of ...
Step 2, you need customers of Airbus/Boeing/etc. (i.e. airlines) to *elect to purchase the design update for fleets of dozens or hundreds of aircraft. There is likely exactly no appetite for incurring that cost by the operators.
* I say elect but in theory domestic aviation authorities could impose the update by issuing an airworthiness directive or something, but such a move would require the decision to be based on strong enough concerns over the safety of the flying public, which is based on known problems or events of significant enough severity to make it viable, not to mention harmonization among authorities around the globe (the biggest ones at least) since no single authority would go it alone and penalize its industry in such a manner. In summary, not a chance.
2. You're right, operators have no desire in incur additional costs for upgrading equipment, when those additional costs can not be justified. Not enough people have died in order to justify the costs.
Yes, there is a dollar amount applied to the lives of people that fly. To date flying is by far the safest mode of transportation, gets safer every year, despite a few incidents where the n00bs of the public take a myopic view of the incident and think the industry is in a catastrophic free-fall safety wise. Anyone that has any sort of concern or questions about airline safety really should not be getting out of bed.
Great post yowspotter, I believe there are 2 hour solid state units that are approved for most commercial aircraft, just a question of $$$ as you say.
EASA is mandating these changes for 2019, as usual Canada will be decades behind.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...on-new-timings
EASA is mandating these changes for 2019, as usual Canada will be decades behind.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-...on-new-timings
Last edited by jaysona; May 4, 2018 at 7:49 pm
May 4, 2018, 7:58 pm
#837
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,347
1. New equipment would be needed. Adding a module to a CVR or FDR is not possible due to the way they are designed. As older CVRs and FDRs reach their life limit they can be replaced with newer models that have increased recording capabilities.
2. You're right, operators have no desire in incur additional costs for upgrading equipment, when those additional costs can not be justified. Not enough people have died in order to justify the costs.
Yes, there is a dollar amount applied to the lives of people that fly. To date flying is by far the safest mode of transportation, gets safer every year, despite a few incidents where the n00bs of the public take a myopic view of the incident and think the industry is in a catastrophic free-fall safety wise. Anyone that has any sort of concern or questions about airline safety really should not be getting out of bed.
This is been a more than ten year endeavor, Canada will follow suit at some point, but the reality is the need for more than 30 minutes for accident investigations really isn't there. In the majority of the cases where an accident has occurred, the last 30 minutes typically yield more than enough information about all the various factors that contributed to the cause of the accident.
2. You're right, operators have no desire in incur additional costs for upgrading equipment, when those additional costs can not be justified. Not enough people have died in order to justify the costs.
Yes, there is a dollar amount applied to the lives of people that fly. To date flying is by far the safest mode of transportation, gets safer every year, despite a few incidents where the n00bs of the public take a myopic view of the incident and think the industry is in a catastrophic free-fall safety wise. Anyone that has any sort of concern or questions about airline safety really should not be getting out of bed.
This is been a more than ten year endeavor, Canada will follow suit at some point, but the reality is the need for more than 30 minutes for accident investigations really isn't there. In the majority of the cases where an accident has occurred, the last 30 minutes typically yield more than enough information about all the various factors that contributed to the cause of the accident.
Do you not think it's worth having all tools available to investigate a near-miss so that an accident in the future can be avoided?
May 4, 2018, 8:25 pm
#838
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by canadiancow
Do you not think it's worth having all tools available to investigate a near-miss so that an accident in the future can be avoided?
May 4, 2018, 8:25 pm
#839
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
There already exist plenty of tools that are readily available for investigating incidents to a satisfactory conclusion.
Changing this will require a Herculean effort of the part of all the investigating and regulatory bodies around the world, which probably would only occur based on an ICAO directive. There are far greater concerns that the industry has to deal with at the moment.
May 4, 2018, 8:33 pm
#840
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,878
CVR/FDR data are used for accident investigations.
There already exist plenty of tools that are readily available for investigating incidents to a satisfactory conclusion.
Changing this will require a Herculean effort of the part of all the investigating and regulatory bodies around the world, which probably would only occur based on an ICAO directive. There are far greater concerns that the industry has to deal with at the moment.