Car black box prepares for take-off

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Car black box prepares for take-off

Post by Widow »

http://news.scotsman.com:80/uk.cfm?id=740042007

They're going to put black boxes in cars and they haven't even been made mandatory for all commercial aircraft??
Car black box prepares for take-off
MURDO MACLEOD
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (mmacleod@scotlandonsunday.com)

CARS will be equipped with £500 aircraft-style black boxes to help cut the death toll on the country's roads under plans being considered by the government.

Department for Transport (DfT) officials are working with international experts to develop worldwide standards for car data recorders that record key information, including a car's speed and steering angle, in the moments up to a crash.

Some are capable of sending a signal to alert the emergency services if they "think" that the driver is seriously injured. Sat-nav technology then guides police and paramedics to the vehicle.

Different types of black boxes, which are actually brightly coloured so they can be easily found following a crash, have already been installed in a small number of top-of-the-range cars in the UK and in a larger number of vehicles in the United States.

Road traffic laws are reserved to the Westminster government, which is increasingly concerned about the rising death toll on the country's road network. In 2005, the latest year for which figures are available, 286 people were killed on Scotland's roads, and 2,600 were seriously injured.

Now, the DfT has confirmed it is in talks with transport authorities and manufacturers across the world with a view to bringing in a new kind of black box data recorder for new cars. It also acknowledged that civil liberties campaigners may oppose the devices.

A DfT spokesman said: "The government recognises the contribution these devices make to improving vehicle safety particularly in the field of research. The use of equipment that can record details of an individual's actions may have implications for personal privacy and these have to be considered carefully."

The government's main focus is on the US, where the devices - known as Motor Vehicle Event Data Recorders (MVEDR) - are fitted on the majority of new cars, particularly high-specification models. The devices were originally developed to help tweak the design and settings of airbag systems in cars.

America's National Transportation Safety Board, the nation's road safety watchdog, wants the technology installed in all new vehicles. Although US legislators have so far not agreed, they have formulated laws stating what kind of data the boxes will have to collect.


'Motorists may feel that it might be used to track them for road pricing'
This information includes vehicle speed, engine revs per minute, acceleration, what angle the vehicle is at, data from the antilock braking system, whether the driver and passenger are wearing seatbelts, and what angle the steering wheel is at. The boxes will also collect data from the car's airbag systems. Unlike similar systems on aircraft, the black box will not record conversations in the car.

Crash investigators hope they will be able to use the information in future to work out the causes behind crashes including who might have been at fault and whether design problems might have contributed.

The news that £500 will be added to the price of new cars is likely to receive a hostile reception from motorists in the UK who already pay more than drivers in many other European countries and face ever increasing fuel and road taxes.

Civil liberties groups have also expressed fears over the possible invasion of privacy.

Human rights lawyer John Scott said: "This sort of development could represent a further encroachment into privacy. When we already have a number of different techniques for vehicle recognition and massive CCTV coverage all over, this is another way of tracking us. Bit by bit our privacy is being eroded. While we have a government which means us no harm, these things can be used in ways we wouldn't like."

A spokeswoman for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited (SMMT) added: "This is something which has not really been discussed for quite a while. The engine management systems in some cars can record some of this kind of data, but there needs to be a balance between the issues of road safety and personal privacy. A lot more research needs to be done."

Others were more welcoming but foresaw problems over fears the devices would be used for road pricing.

Neil Greig, head of policy in Scotland for the Institute of Advanced Motorists Trust, said: "Consumers will like the idea of a black box which could alert the authorities in the event of an accident, and that is especially relevant in the United States where drivers cover very large areas.

"The question to be sorted out here would be who will take the call, because the emergency services are, if anything, wanting to screen out unnecessary calls. Also, motorists will be very sceptical of something like this if they feel it might be used to track them for road pricing.

"We do welcome the move for an international system. Scottish drivers increasingly buy cars from North America and East Asia and you want systems bought there to work here."

Some cars already carry forms of black boxes, which can record some data about speed as part of engine management systems. Many newer Mercedes-Benz cars, for instance, log engine data so that mechanics can analyse any starting problem.

In addition, some newer BMWs have devices which are connected to satellite navigation networks and can analyse whether to alert the emergency services after an incident.

If the vehicle's airbags have been activated and the car is not moving, the computer judges that an accident has taken place. If the driver has not pressed the SOS button available in some models, then the computer will alert a BMW rescue centre which will in turn request an ambulance and police to go to the scene of the accident.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

widow, what would be the purpose in your opinon, for equipping all commercial airplanes with flight recorders? For safety, enforcement or litigation?
---------- ADS -----------
 
wingtip
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:00 pm

Post by wingtip »

Gee, following that line of thought, why are they required in any aircraft cid?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

wingtip, I don't know about you but I feel it is insulting to ask widow such a loaded question.

Fortunately widow is to smart to get caught in such a transparent leading question.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

Man, you guys an your conspiracy theories.

I am merely trying to understand widow's post and where she's going with it. You know, questions are not always challenges.

wingtip, I know why flight recorders are installed in some airplanes and not in others.

I also know that if we designed and manufactured cars using the same standards we design and manufacture large commercial airlines, none of us would be able to afford them. Therefore it's often tough to draw comparisions between the industries.

Cat, and wingtip, do you feel commercial Beavers should carry flight recorders? How about 185s? How much do you think operators would be willing to pay?
---------- ADS -----------
 
reverend
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:27 am
Location: Edmonton, AB

Car black box prepares for take-off

Post by reverend »

I remember a homebuilt using an I-Pod to record data. Shouldn't be much more complicated than that for GA aircraft. Would need to be TSO'd or STC'd but the technology is the same.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Post by CD »

Interestingly, although the article briefly mentioned it, if you are driving a car that is equipped with airbags, you already have a data recorder on board. The sensor that measures the parameters in order to activate the airbag when certain G tolerances have been exceeded, also records those parameters in the milliseconds leading up to the "crash". Most people don't know this, nor do they realize that this data can then be retrieved by the law enforcement folks who reconstruct accident scenes.

By the way, this data has been used for both enforcement (to lay charges for reckless/dangerous driving) and litigation (victims and insurance companies).

Soooooo... Really, the only "safety" benefit to having a "black box" in the car is likely in the individual knowing that they will get hammered by law enforcement if they are in an accident. Therefore, they may consider driving more responsibly - or maintain and keep driving their older car that doesn't need or have a data recorder...
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Oil Burner
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:58 am
Location: Nomadic

Post by Oil Burner »

Read up on the subject in George Orwell's "1984"....
---------- ADS -----------
 
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Post by 2R »

Most new cars already have the chip that records your speed at the time of an accident .Used succeesfully in some courts to prove cause .
Easily removed and replaced by a blank if you need it blanked.
Not sure if a fifty pound magnet is effective at wiping the memory ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
log sheet
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Northwestern ON, but the Heart belongs to the Rock!lol

Post by log sheet »

Probally good idea. It's main purpose in A/C( IN MY OPINION) is for safety reasons. In the event of an accident CVR's and FDR's have given valuable information to help prevent future accidents.
Maby having this kind of system in cars might save a life!
Not sure of exact law in CARS but Pretty sure over 9 seats require a CVR, not sure right now about FDR but a 19 seater has one!
CHEERS!
---------- ADS -----------
 
GIT-R-DONE!
CD
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:13 pm
Location: Canada

Post by CD »

---------- ADS -----------
 
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

CID wrote:widow, what would be the purpose in your opinon, for equipping all commercial airplanes with flight recorders? For safety, enforcement or litigation?
CID, you ought to know me well enough by now to know that my answer is safety.

With a black box, of course assuming it was waterproof, would tell us what happened in accidents where all the evidence isn't available (i.e. we wouldn't need AQWs engine to find out what happened). This wasn't the first accident where wreckage was recovered without an engine, or not recovered at all. Heck, the right kind of CDR even acts like an ELT and could save a few lives.

I don't care about cost, I care about safety. As with the arguments about the 406Mhz ELT, if a commercial op can't afford it, they shouldn't be in business. I don't agree that a plane with less than nine passengers is less important than a plane with more. My opinion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
blachang
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:58 pm

Post by blachang »

Safety is an interesting issue in aircraft design and manufacture. Air transportation is largely affected by cost, for example companies have to make sure thier operation is both safe and economically viable. It is an excellent idea to put a black box in every commercial aircraft. It could be said that safety would be enhanced if every airplane operated commerciallly had FADEC on the engines, mode S transponder, TCAS 2, Engine Fire Extinguishers, redundancy on all the systems, the list goes on and on for devices that would enhance safety. The trouble is; all these things cost big money that the end user has to pay for, that being: the flying customer.
Just as an example, if a company had to install every piece of safety equipment available on its " insert airplane type here" to fly tourists over Niagara Falls, or on a King Air to fly Air Ambulance, they'd have no customers.
Obvoiusly, safety is paramount but there has to be a reasonable cost associated with the benefit, and someone has to shoulder this cost. Newer planes usually have more advanced safety features but come at a much higher cost. Most people think nothing of getting in an airplane built in the 50's, 60's or 70's, why are we still running equipment that old even if we know it would be safer to fly only shiny new iron? Cost....thats why.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

These things are pretty much standard in new aircraft. I see a problem with the aging aircraft which haven't been updated.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

Widow, maybe a short discussion on flight recorders is in order. You can't just bolt in a "black box" and have it record flight data.

Requiring flight recorders in airplanes like Beavers could very well make them obsolete.

Generally, flight data recorders measure engine power based on one or more available parameters. In the case of a piston banger (which at best is very very rare in the FDR world) I assume they would monitor RPM and manifold pressure. Either way, it would be near impossible to determine the cause of the engine failure from that.

Of course the engine would have to be modified a bit to accomodate a manifold pressure sensor. Ironically, the presence of the sensor may add risk of engine failure.

Even if you measured CHT and EGT at each cylinder, it would still be inconclusive. It would be near impossible to add enough sensors to detect cylinder stud failures. Not only that, can you imagine trying to maintain that whole mess of sensors on that engine?

Then you have flight controls, air data, direction, attitude, and acceleration forces. And don't forget the voice recorder.

Using currently available technology, you're looking at about $50K (and about 50 pounds)just for the recorders. Upgraded air data, attitude and heading instruments would need to be installed to feed the FDR. An accelerometer sells for a few thousand. By the time you get the whole mess approved, you're probably talking about $100K

In summary, it would at best be extremely impractical and expensive to install the system and it wouldn't contribute directly to safety in the short term, and in my opinion very little in the long term.

Let's face it, a Beaver is a low performance proven design that is restricted to VFR commercially. Mandating the carriage of flight recorders in these airplanes is not only impractical but overall, any cost/benefit analysis would easily prove the idea to be mostly cost and little benefit.

I know you don't like the term "risk management" but that's exactly how equipage rules are determined. Airplanes that don't meet certain equipage standards are restricted to lower risk ops. Some airplanes like the Beaver can't meet certain equipage standars so they are relegated to the lowest risk ops.

So the question remains, what drastic mistakes were made to cause this low risk flight to be involved in a fatal accident?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

See, I can't even answer your question because we disagree on a basic premise. I would not consider the business of flying loggers vfr on the bc coast "low risk".
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1645
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Post by boeingboy »

Widow.

CID has some very potent points, some of the very same I would - and I think you should be able to answer them.

Flying - just like driving - is, overall fairly low risk. Statisticly you have a MUCH higher chance of dying driving to Safeway than you do getting on a commercial flight. Flying is safe - it's some operators (or people) that make it unsafe, and I thought that was the whole point of your crusade (TC's lack of actions and unsafe operators)

You keep at this - "I want to make flying safer" and I applaud you for it, but I think you go overboard sometimes. Yes - some things maybe should be installed or made mandentory, but something like a black box for small aircraft like a beaver will not tell you anything more about what happened to your husbands plane than you already know - you would still need the engine itself. Please don't get so defensive when someone actually makes a good point.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

I would not consider the business of flying loggers vfr on the bc coast "low risk".
Generally flying in airplanes has no inherent risks, and VFR flight in a low performance airplane presents the lowest risk in the entire industry short of sitting in your airplane on the ramp.

If in fact the generally accepted practice on the left coast is to "climb up through the fog" on these flights then they are not only breaking the rules, they are imposing undue risk to what is by definition "low risk".

Some people have restrictions on their drivers licenses. Some require corrective lenses. Others can't drive at night. There are speed limits, traffic signs and signals that are designed to adjust traffic for the conditions.

When people break the rules, a low risk drive to Safeway, may turn in to a high risk and even deadly trip. If people don't break the rules by speeding, or disobeying traffic signs, or leaving their glasses at home or driving at night when not authorized, low risk remains low risk.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Widow
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4592
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

Post by Widow »

The accident rates indicate that air taxi's are not so "low risk". In the US (where accident rates are significantly better than they are here), experts have likened general aviation to riding a motorcycle. So what makes flying VFR in a low perfomance airplane the lowest risk in the industry? Is it the numbers of potential deaths? 300 pax as opposed to seven? Every life is equally valuable.

Since the air taxi accident rate is so undeniably high, TCCA ought to be focusing on improving that rate. Learning from past accidents is key.

Clearly a "black box" for a Beaver (or other small aircraft) would have to be geared down, with somebody knowledgeable (not me) deciding what the most important information to collect would be.

May I remind you of the things that I used to believe? Like everyone who does not actually work in aviation, I believed that all airplanes have black boxes, are tracked by radar, have working ELT's (that of course work underwater), and are actually inspected for airworthiness regularly by TCCA. But none of these assumptions were correct. Any single one could have made a big difference to our current situation.

Our accident is not the first where there was significant evidence of an engine failure but the pilot was "blamed". I doubt it will be the last either. But with a "black box" of some kind (again, I'm not the expert on what information would be most important) I do feel convinced that something more could have been learned (like whether the engine was running when AQW "crashed"). I could be wrong and that is why I started this thread for debate.

TCCA doesn't want to mandate ULB's for commercial float ops, they don't want to mandate 406Mhz ELTs for all commercial ops, CVRs and "black boxes" are not required for small ops, they can flight follow using a "type d" system - where there doesn't even have to be someone maintaining a listening watch.

In my opinion, this high risk sector of aviation needs to be cleaned up. Rulebreakers are TCCA's responsibility - they should be "walking the beat" and enforcing. Maybe if they did their job effectively, the accident rates would improve significantly (as implied by the ex TCCA inspector who testified at the committee yesterday). Accidents will still happen, and we should learn as much as possible from each and every one.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Former Advocate for Floatplane Safety
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

Rulebreakers are TCCA's responsibility - they should be "walking the beat" and enforcing. Maybe if they did their job effectively, the accident rates would improve significantly (as implied by the ex TCCA inspector who testified at the committee yesterday). Accidents will still happen, and we should learn as much as possible from each and every one.
_________________


widow, until the culture of fear that good TC inspectors work under is removed there can be no hope of effective oversight by TCCA.

I am watching with great intrest the workings of the committee and had hoped that more operators would join DaxAir in testifying regarding the fear factor when dealing with TCCA.

Maybe, just maybe this committee will zero in on the real reason TCCA is disfunctional and enforces selectively.

Until Merlin Preuss is forced to answer why he condones dishonesty at the highest levels of TCCA nothing will change in my opinion.

But we are getting closer, I wonder what kind of pablum Merlin is feeding Cannon as these hearings go on?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
gli77
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Over there and to the left.

Post by gli77 »

Safety in aviation has become a buzz word and leverage tool. Whoever uses "in the interest of safety" first in a discussion has the upper hand.

With regards to FDR's/CVR's/QAR's the benefits of having these units installed, as assessed from the number of times the information is downloaded, would be:

1. Troubleshooting.
2. Find fault/cause - usually pilot error, which unions hate.
3. Safety in the form of preventing future occurences.

Having them installed on every single aircraft would be handy for all 3 above items but not realistic.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Over the Horn
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:28 pm
Contact:

Post by Over the Horn »

HMMM 50lb fuel, 50lb under gross T.O.W. or 50lb black box, in the interest of safety in a beaver or any single eng. plane I know what I'd choose, and it aint the black box :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
gli77
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:59 am
Location: Over there and to the left.

Post by gli77 »

[quote="Over the Horn"]HMMM 50lb fuel, 50lb under gross T.O.W. or 50lb black box, in the interest of safety in a beaver or any single eng. plane I know what I'd choose, and it aint the black box :roll:[/quote]

50lbs! How many FDR's are you installing?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
KISS_MY_TCAS
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:31 am
Location: ask your mom, she knows!

Post by KISS_MY_TCAS »

Widow, the cost of recurring maintenance on CVR/FDRs is ridiculous, I have encountered several 19 seat aircraft that have the FDRs removed simply due to cost, and by regulation they are not required to be there. There are also several older machines with FDRs installed that record so few parameters, no investigator will ever determine the cause of the accident by the <10 parameters recorded, but the requirement to have an FDR installed is satisfied.

In your last post, you compared the US system's GA ops to riding a motorcycle, Canada is different in several ways (nevermind the fact that the statistic quoted is likely also American, there are numerous states without motorcycle helmet laws in place. My mother is an RN is the USA, the state she works in has no helmet law and the casualty rate is unbelievable) Maintenance, pilot training.....all of it is different so comparing the US/FAA to Canada/TC is in a way like apples to oranges. Much easier in the US for a low time/ low experience pilot or mechanic to get their hands on a larger machine than Canada would allow them to touch. CVRs/FDRs in light aircraft will never happen, it would increase the cost sharply enough that companies would lose business due to the increased fare while other operators without the equipment installed keep their rates down. While I do feel for your loss and sympathize with your situation, such is the nature of the industry. The flying public wants the trip flown as affordable as possible, the operators are left to compete for that clientele. Would your husband and his collegues have willingly spent the extra money for the trip knowing they were on a CVR/FDR equipped machine, or would they look for the cheaper rate? The industry chases the public's demand for affordable flights, and the best price always wins regardless. $1000 for a trip on a well maintained, well crewed aircraft operated by a company with a decades long accident free reputation, or $600 because it gets you to the same place for less money. This country in the past, present, and future is full of operators that are in compliance at a bare minimum because the public demands it so they can keep fares down. Is the enemy the industry, or the ignorant public?
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Post by CID »

50lbs! How many FDR's are you installing?
Most of the flight data recorders in use today weigh about 30 pounds. Throw in a 15 pound FDAU, sensors, wiring, racks and connectors and 50 pounds is within reach. Add a CVR and you're well over 50 pounds.

Many of the latest greated flight recorders weigh about 10 pounds. Double that (CVR plus FDR) and add the FDAU etc, and you're still getting close to 50 pounds.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”