Dear TSB - Flight Recorders are way too expensive

[pelmet]

Some of you might remember the tragic train/bus collision near Ottawa when a bus driver was not paying attention and was hit by the train killing six people. The TSB came up with a hugely expensive fix called grade separation. It only costs about 100 million dollars and they have been following up with the city of Ottawa(as can be seen on the link below) and now the price is approaching half a billion dollars as a city study has identified other crossings that may get grade separations. One might think that training bus drivers to not talk to passengers while driving or perhaps spending some money to isolate them from passengers would be a lot less expensive. There are endless railway crossings in Canada and endless other road hazards that could be changed at great expense.

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommanda ... -r1505.asp

My point...….There seems to be a spare no expense to the accident prevention solutions from the TSB.

Meanwhile, the TSB is frustrated that they cannot come to definite conclusions on certain light aircraft accidents. A case in point is the recently discussed accident to a Piper Seneca on a training flight in Calgary where the instructor almost certainly did a dangerous simulated engine failure at low altitude.

But it cannot be concluded 100% that this was the cause of the accident, just like lots of other accidents can't be known for sure. But in the report, we see another expensive solution as shown below......

"TSB Recommendation A18-01 The Department of Transport require the mandatory installation of lightweight flight recording systems by commercial operators and private operators not currently required to carry these systems."

So how expensive is this. Well, a study was done in Europe where the governments have regulated general aviation almost out of business. The study was done because Europe is considering doing the same thing and they wanted to know how much it would cost to install these recorders. I have posted a link to the report below(including estimated costs). It is another expense that will just drive GA further and further away from the average persons ability to afford.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 017-03.pdf

Please TSB, we are not learning anything new from virtually all of these GA accidents. Yes, it is nice to know the exact details and it is easier for you to investigate but adding thousands and thousands of dollars to each GA aircraft is only going to mean less accidents because less GA aircraft will be flying. Stop helping to drive GA out of business.

[RatherBeFlying]

There's all sorts of GPS flight recorders used in gliders starting at $470 US. But then many GPS navigation systems already record considerable data. But it inevitably gets super expensive when the regulators get involved.

[PilotDAR]

But it inevitably gets super expensive when the regulators get involved.

And therein lies the problem. If the system is to be formally installed to meet a requirement, it will demonstrate compliance and be an approved installation (Oh, and did I mention that TC is proposing to more than double the fees for approval applications?). Then, the approved, installed system will have to be maintained. Then, one morning, the CVR system is found not to work, and an otherwise airworthy airplane is not available for flight training. Oh, and by the way, the system will be useless as an investigative tool for listening to cockpit discussions for solo flights.

We must not be driven to "system" our aircraft to death. Yes, we might learn something from hearing the cockpit discussion, or we could learn the same thing by reminding ourselves that a competent peer possibly made an error, we understand what that error might have been, and whether told by the TSB, or our own wisdom, we just should not make that mistake ourselves!

[jakeandelwood]

But it inevitably gets super expensive when the regulators get involved.

And therein lies the problem. If the system is to be formally installed to meet a requirement, it will demonstrate compliance and be an approved installation (Oh, and did I mention that TC is proposing to more than double the fees for approval applications?). Then, the approved, installed system will have to be maintained. Then, one morning, the CVR system is found not to work, and an otherwise airworthy airplane is not available for flight training. Oh, and by the way, the system will be useless as an investigative tool for listening to cockpit discussions for solo flights.

We must not be driven to "system" our aircraft to death. Yes, we might learn something from hearing the cockpit discussion, or we could learn the same thing by reminding ourselves that a competent peer possibly made an error, we understand what that error might have been, and whether told by the TSB, or our own wisdom, we just should not make that mistake ourselves!

Good points, cockpit voice recording could be cheap until it's regulated and the government is involved. Unlike the '60s and '70s general aviation will become too expensive for for the average Joe in the future.

[FenderManDan]

Too many damn GA planes slowing down the system. On the serious note, tsb can just use liveatc for GA stuff. I doubt they can find much listening c150 chatter.

[Heliian]

One of the purposes of the CVR is to record the voices inside the aircraft. The other important purpose of the CVR is to record ambient sounds through an area microphone from the aircraft. This has helped many investigations as they can hear and isolate what's going on. They can even tell what switch you flipped, engine speeds, wind noise, etc.

Safety costs money, ga owners don't like spending money, of course they'll complain. I personally support these types of systems as questions can be answered and causes can be found, educating other aviators and families alike.

Learn from the mistakes of others.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Don'y know much about it, but the MU-2 that crashed in Isle de la Madeleine in 2016, had been fitted with some sort is reasonably cheap FDR, that was instrumental in the crash investigation.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 6a0032.asp

1.11.1 Wi-Flight GTA02 flight data recorder system
The aircraft was equipped with a General Aviation Safety Network34 Wi-Flight GTA02 FDR system, which the manufacturer markets as a portable, automatic FDR for the purpose of flight operations quality assurance and flight data monitoring. The Wi-Flight GTA02 FDR is based on a smartphone, with extensive software customization
options. Although this system was not designed or marketed to meet the requirements of CARs section 605.33, it does record cockpit ambient sound, complete cockpit voice audio from the radio microphones, GPS information, and acceleration data (Appendix C). The system can automatically generate alerts after the flight, when certain parameters of the recorded flight are exceeded by either pilot inputs or unsafe flight conditions. “After landing [the recorder] automatically uploads its data contents via [...] Wi-Fi access points, any open Wi-Fi or optional 3G/4G cellular upload.”35 The GTA02 FDR system was installed by a TC-approved maintenance organization in accordance with the Maintenance Implementation Procedures. The recorder was installed in the mounting bracket supplied by the manufacturer, which was permanently fastened to the top of the radio-mounting rack. Electrical power for the recorder was supplied by a separate stand-alone cigar lighter socket that had been permanently mounted under the cockpit instrument panel. The electrical power wiring was secured using cable ties. All data for the occurrence flight was successfully extracted from the Wi-Flight GTA02 FDR system.

[PilotDAR]

I personally support these types of systems as questions can be answered and causes can be found, educating other aviators and families alike.

Certainly you're free to install such systems if you see the value or importance in doing so. On day, such a system will provide useful data, which otherwise could not have been obtained, and perhaps an otherwise unknown cause will be known. But the cost to every other aircraft to cover the one or few useful data sets which may result could be too penalizing.

We need to have proficient pilots, they make planes safe. A pilot will be more proficient because they flew more, not because there was more "just in case" equipment in the aircraft! If we make all GA aircraft expensive systems intense pilots will just fly them less, and accidents will increase for lack of skill and currency. Most accidents are due to a simple error on the part of the pilot flying, which no amount of post crash data will illuminate any more the cause was already pretty clear.

[pelmet]

One of the purposes of the CVR is to record the voices inside the aircraft. The other important purpose of the CVR is to record ambient sounds through an area microphone from the aircraft. This has helped many investigations as they can hear and isolate what's going on. They can even tell what switch you flipped, engine speeds, wind noise, etc.

Safety costs money, ga owners don't like spending money, of course they'll complain. I personally support these types of systems as questions can be answered and causes can be found, educating other aviators and families alike.

Learn from the mistakes of others.

There is more than enough information and accident reports out there to educate pilots to avoid almost any scenario. Using the accident that Piper Seneca training accident on departure in Calgary as an example,(because the recommendation was in that accident report) what are we going to learn. The thought process of the instructor on what he briefed the student about. We already know....don't simulate engine failures at low altitude, they increase the risk of a crash. Maybe we would find out how much rudder input the student made and discover he pressed the wrong pedal initially. Do we need recorders to be knowledgeable about that. Maybe we will learn that full power wasn't used on the good engine resulting in poor performance. We already know about this issue. Or maybe they were too slow and added full power leading to a VMC roll. We already know that can happen. Or maybe a fuel selector was used to simulate the engine failure. Already know that this is a bad idea.

"Safety costs money" is just a general statement that can result in endless expenses. There is a balance. Look at my first example above with the bus crossing the train tracks. Should we spend hundreds of billions so that roads no longer have railway crossings. Safety costs money but how about paying attention. Imagine if all two lane highways were divided....no more head on collisions. What would that cost but who cares because safety costs money. There are endless risks that can be reduced by a non-sensical argument when a reasonable balance should be found.

And what about all the small aircraft with no electrical system. Are mods required for all of them. Will we need air data computers installed to supply information to recording devices. Time for the TSB to investigate to the best of its ability and not to try and get the light aircraft accident record down to zero by grounding all light aircraft due to expense. Knowledge is the key along with reasonable skill and good judgement.

[goingnowherefast]

CVRs in private aircraft is a bit ridiculous. There are very few new ways to crash an airplane. A serious increase in safety can be achieved through currency and education. PilotDAR mentioned just flying more! Flying clubs, talking to fellow pilots, that's often a huge increase in safety right there. "Hey, did you hear what happened to Bob last week", then the whole group learns from that. TC used to publish a magazine a while ago recent incidences, and allow everybody to learn from it.

I'd much rather see private pilots flying more, reading about past incidences than have some fancy CVR installed. I'm afraid it will be Mrs. Private pilot, in a 152 who used to fly 100 hours a year. Now with that expensive new CVR, can only afford 50 hours this year, then is heard saying "shit, shit, shit" on said CVR because of a lack of proficiency in that crosswind landings. Fix the proficiency with more flying, not a CVR.

[mbav8r]

One of the purposes of the CVR is to record the voices inside the aircraft. The other important purpose of the CVR is to record ambient sounds through an area microphone from the aircraft. This has helped many investigations as they can hear and isolate what's going on. They can even tell what switch you flipped, engine speeds, wind noise, etc.

Safety costs money, ga owners don't like spending money, of course they'll complain. I personally support these types of systems as questions can be answered and causes can be found, educating other aviators and families alike.

Learn from the mistakes of others.

There is more than enough information and accident reports out there to educate pilots to avoid almost any scenario. Using the accident that Piper Seneca training accident on departure in Calgary as an example,(because the recommendation was in that accident report) what are we going to learn. The thought process of the instructor on what he briefed the student about. We already know....don't simulate engine failures at low altitude, they increase the risk of a crash. Maybe we would find out how much rudder input the student made and discover he pressed the wrong pedal initially. Do we need recorders to be knowledgeable about that. Maybe we will learn that full power wasn't used on the good engine resulting in poor performance. We already know about this issue. Or maybe they were too slow and added full power leading to a VMC roll. We already know that can happen. Or maybe a fuel selector was used to simulate the engine failure. Already know that this is a bad idea.

"Safety costs money" is just a general statement that can result in endless expenses. There is a balance. Look at my first example above with the bus crossing the train tracks. Should we spend hundreds of billions so that roads no longer have railway crossings. Safety costs money but how about paying attention. Imagine if all two lane highways were divided....no more head on collisions. What would that cost but who cares because safety costs money. There are endless risks that can be reduced by a non-sensical argument when a reasonable balance should be found.

And what about all the small aircraft with no electrical system. Are mods required for all of them. Will we need air data computers installed to supply information to recording devices. Time for the TSB to investigate to the best of its ability and not to try and get the light aircraft accident record down to zero by grounding all light aircraft due to expense. Knowledge is the key along with reasonable skill and good judgement.

A lot of maybe in there, maybe we should know if pilots are making the same mistakes over and over, fact is we don’t know if the student put the wrong rudder in or any of the possibilities you mentioned or if it was something else. Maybe the rudder jammed, maybe the other engine wouldn’t produce enough power, maybe they feathered the wrong engine, maybe it was something we’ve never seen before.
Tell you what, maybe the TSB shouldn’t put any resources at all into making general aviation safer, sounds like you’ve got er all figured out.
Without the right tools at the end users expense, the cost to the tax payer is not worth it, so I would support an initiative that has the full cost of determining what happened covered by insurance. Your premiums can be based on what you’re willing to spend on YOUR hobby, cheaper premiums with an FDR.

[Cliff Jumper]

Totally agree with the OP. Does the TSB think that everyone who owns a GA aircraft has a spare $0.99 just lying around????

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/flight- ... 18302?mt=8

[PilotDAR]

maybe the TSB shouldn’t put any resources at all into making general aviation safer,

For my experience, the TSB investigators have a pretty good idea when to dig deeper into an investigation, and when there's nothing more to learn. Often they interview as possible, and decide not to issue a report - "nothing to learn from this one" is what I was told, and they were right!

Preceding posts offered a real world selection of causes of accidents - yup, an accident could be cause by those conditions so we already know - don't do that! Let's discuss, and practice safely, rather than plan to gather crash data.

[goingnowherefast]

Totally agree with the OP. Does the TSB think that everyone who owns a GA aircraft has a spare $0.99 just lying around????

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/flight- ... 18302?mt=8

I think that's a fantastic idea. But then it has to be certified, and comes at certified prices.

Same problem with avionics. Look at a home-built aircraft panel. Non certified avionics with huge screens, synthetic vision, the works. I bet that would have prevented some night CFIT or VFR into IMC accidents. A $10,000 non-certified panel is safer than the junk in most Cessnas, but probably costs about the same.

If it was available to install a basic CVR for $200, nobody would say no. We all know a CVR that will be certified for installation into a privately registered C152 will cost a lot more than that.

[mbav8r]

maybe the TSB shouldn’t put any resources at all into making general aviation safer,

For my experience, the TSB investigators have a pretty good idea when to dig deeper into an investigation, and when there's nothing more to learn. Often they interview as possible, and decide not to issue a report - "nothing to learn from this one" is what I was told, and they were right!

Preceding posts offered a real world selection of causes of accidents - yup, an accident could be cause by those conditions so we already know - don't do that! Let's discuss, and practice safely, rather than plan to gather crash data.

Obviously, you missed the point, if they can’t immediately determine there’s nothing to learn, they put resources at it. I’m a tax payer and would rather they had the tools to know exactly what’s going on without putting all that tax payer money into it, if that costs you more, I’m ok with it.
Also, if they can determine exactly what’s happened and it keeps happening, they can put recommendations on how to prevent it from continuing to happen. Furthermore, sometimes it could appear as though something likely happened but doesn’t mean it did.
Like I said, if insurance paid what it cost to investigate the cause, your premiums could be based on what you’re willing to equip your aircraft with.
I have a state of the art home security system with heat, carbon monoxide and freeze detection, I pay less insurance. If I had a full on sprinkler system, I would pay even less.
I also pay more insurance on my motorcycle because public insurance feels they are more risky, if I don’t want to pay more, I don’t have to, simple.
Is that something you would do, choose whether or not to install an FDR to save insurance premiums or is anything that will cost you more and the tax payer less a non starter?

[pelmet]

Is that something you would do, choose whether or not to install an FDR to save insurance premiums or is anything that will cost you more and the tax payer less a non starter?

Hint....insurance companies give a discount to individuals who do things to lessen the chance of an accident, not find out what the cause was after the accident.

Obviously, you missed the point, if they can’t immediately determine there’s nothing to learn, they put resources at it. I’m a tax payer and would rather they had the tools to know exactly what’s going on without putting all that tax payer money into it, if that costs you more, I’m ok with it.

Apparently yyou do think we should pay more, much more. You are the type that GA pilots have to fight to save the industry from ridiculous over-regulation. CVR's and FDR's on ultralights....how many people are there with ridiculous ideas?...a lot apparently.

[photofly]

Um...there will be no new causes of aircraft accidents this year. (Am I allowed to say that around here?)

In terms of a cost benefit analysis, better training and more flying is the cheapest way to save lives. Not having a CVR has never killed anyone in a light aircraft, as far as I know.

[pelmet]

Um...there will be no new causes of aircraft accidents this year. (Am I allowed to say that around here?)

In terms of a cost benefit analysis, better training and more flying is the cheapest way to save lives. Not having a CVR has never killed anyone in a light aircraft, as far as I know.

And the idea that somehow the taxpayers will save money is ridiculous. There are enough accident sin this country that even if a few less accidents due to recorder installation(or even a 50% decrease), there are still more than enough accidents in GA for the TSB to contimue investigating at the same rate which is....until their limited budget is maxed out.

I wonder if the TSB does any cost/benefit analysis is done before these recommendations are made.

Of course the answer could be....even one life saved is immeasurable.

[photofly]

In the US, the NTSB is not required to consider the cost of its recommendations, but the FAA - which is responsible for deciding whether to implement NTSB recommendations - is.

Background article:
https://jdasolutions.aero/blog/attack-o ... warranted/

As that article points out:

Without some evaluation of the financial impact of a proposed rule, it would be possible for an Administrator to issue a rule that would achieve absolute nirvana aviation safety-zero aircraft accidents-by grounding all of the US aircraft.

Does anyone know of anything similar in Canada?

Of course the answer could be....even one life saved is immeasurable.

No, that's not the answer. I gather for traffic engineering, one life saved per year is worth about $6m. That is, if a project that will save on average 3 deaths a year costs less than $18m, it will be perceived as good value. I can't be sure where I heard that, but it could have been in the context of at-grade road/rail crossings and the cost of building an underpass/overpass.

Another background article, also from the US:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-go ... 1458911310

[pelmet]

Background article:
https://jdasolutions.aero/blog/attack-o ... warranted/

As that article points out:

Without some evaluation of the financial impact of a proposed rule, it would be possible for an Administrator to issue a rule that would achieve absolute nirvana aviation safety-zero aircraft accidents-by grounding all of the US aircraft.

Does anyone know of anything similar in Canada?

Yes, the same result(grounding of aircraft) through the use of more and more expensive regulation until all light aircraft flying is grounded. And this thread is about one of those expensive regulations.