What happened to the black box?

Aircraft voice and data recorders, traditionally known as "black boxes," have yielded many clues to prior disasters. They are actually orange, not black, and are made to withstand the severe forces and intense fires that result from crashes. Many flyers are bewildered at the difficulty in retrieving these devices when an airplane is lost at sea.

The recent tragedy of Air France 447 reminds us of how much we take the safety of air travel for granted. Tens of millions of us travel around the world each year without incident. For most of us, the struggles with delayed flights, surly staff or missing luggage are the most we have to contend with.

When something goes tragically wrong, our attention turns to the fact-finders. Everybody wants to know what happened and why, whenever the comparatively rare event of an air crash becomes front-page news. This is what is so frustrating about Air France 447. The flight recorders remain as critical to the investigation as they are elusive to the searchers. Members have contacted IAPA expressing both frustration and wonder over the fact that these devices are not more easily retrieved. In most cases they are.

Flight recorders are one component – an extremely crucial one – of an air crash investigation. They tell us what the crew was saying, what buttons they were pushing and what the aircraft was doing moments before impact. Investigators will say, however, that clues can still be pieced together without the retrieval of the recorders. For most of us, there is solace in knowing that everything that could be discovered about an accident was, especially if the flight recorders are retrieved. When they’re not retrieved, the questions mount — not just about the incident, but about the technology behind the recorders themselves. Why can’t "black boxes" float? Can’t they transmit data via satellite so that it’s immediate?

The industry has grappled with these very issues over the last several decades and this has led to marked improvements in the technology. That being said, much still needs to be done. Aviation bodies such as ICAO, along with the investigative boards of several nations, including the NTSB (US), TSB (Canada), AAIB (UK), BFU (Germany), and BEA (France), have researched various improvements, including dual systems that house data in a single unit but are redundantly located in two separate sections of an airliner.

Another solution, used by the military, is a deployable unit that can detach from the airplane moments before impact. These are just two of the most well-known solutions that have been considered over the last decade.

Why does it take so long to implement improvements that seem so logical to us? Consider the fact that changes that are to be universally adapted take years to develop and test. Additionally, the aviation safety agencies of various countries then need to recommend the upgrades and/or the retrofitting of equipment and this is typically mandated by each nation’s aviation oversight body, complete with its own multi-year implementation window.

Even proven military technology may not be as viable in commercial applications. There are issues of software, weight, line-of-site requirements for satellite transmissions (difficult to maintain if an aircraft is in an unusual attitude), bandwidth requirements for data, and, of course cost versus benefit. The good news is that better, more powerful tools have been – and are still being – considered. Despite obstacles to gathering and retrieving better flight data, improvements will come. For many of us it will never be soon enough. It’s time for a status update from the industry and IAPA will be happy to share any findings as they become available to us.

Source: IAPA.com