Car black box prepares for take-off

[Widow]

Is the enemy the industry, or the ignorant public?

Neither is the enemy. But the public is "ignorant". They (we) need protecting. We have no way of determining an operators financial status or the pilot's pressures before flying.

As for the difference between Canadian GA and US GA, under TriNat efforts have been made to assimilate sector information for real comparison. Transport Canada's website indicates that we have an abismal air taxi accident rate as compared to both the US and Mexico. I've posted a link before.

I am fully aware that "black boxes", FDRs will never be installed on smaller (and especially older) airplanes. What I was interested in, was what information could be affordably recorded. Would the installation of a CVR with a ULB be out of the realm of affordable possibility as well?

[Cat Driver]

FDR's will not record some of the causes of accidents in 703 operations such as pressure on pilots to overload and fly in weather conditions that are unsafe.

[CID]

Neither is the enemy. But the public is "ignorant". They (we) need protecting. We have no way of determining an operators financial status or the pilot's pressures before flying.

I've stated this before in SEIFR discussions. People get on board these things without understanding that they can legally fly at night in IMC in the middle of no-where with the possibility of a single failure causing a forced landing with no visual cues in inhospitable terrain.

It’s no secret that I think commercial SEIFR is just wrong.

I am fully aware that "black boxes", FDRs will never be installed on smaller (and especially older) airplanes. What I was interested in, was what information could be affordably recorded. Would the installation of a CVR with a ULB be out of the realm of affordable possibility as well?

If the standards are relaxed a bit to adapt the CVR rules to 703 ops, I think some light weight recorders with an attached ULB may be developed and installed for under $5000.

They would of course need to be water proof, and resistant to fire and crash damage to be of any good.

I’m not sure how much help one would be in determining the cause of accidents in 703 Beavers. They could collect circumstantial evidence that the pilot broke the rules. For example, discussions about how the weather is bad or that they are flying under very low overcast but that might not go far in court.

[Widow]

It may sound strange to everyone, but I (and the other families) would have been very grateful, if nothing else, to know what those last minutes on the plane were like. Did anyone attempt to make a call? Did my husband jump or was he still in the plane when it hit the water? Was there smoke? Did someone use the on board fire extinguisher (it was expelled and loose on the floor)? There are a lot of questions that could have been answered if we knew what had happened on board in those last minutes.

[boeingboy]

Sorry widow, but the aviation industry is not going to put black boxes in small planes just so the families can hear what went on.

You post didn't mention anything useful to an investigation. All you would hear is a lot of "oh my god", "were all going to die", "hold on", "strap yourself in", etc......In a single pilot aircraft the pilot is not going through his checklist out loud, and he's not going to anounce anything to the passengers other than a general statement that something is wrong. Not like a 2 crew aircarft where you may have one pilot relaying info to the other while he flies the plane.

Again, nothing really useful will come out of putting black boxes in small aircraft.

[Widow]

So the pilot saying that "something is wrong" wouldn't be proof of more than weather and pilot error? I disagree that "nothing really useful" could come from a CVR recording.

[CID]

This dicussion can go back and forth all day as we debate what is important to one as opposed to others.

The bottom line is that saying general statements like "something is wrong" doesn't do much for accident investiation in my opinion. It just raises more questions. For example, the predominent cause of airplane accidents these days (depending on which study you read) is CFIT.

This is a condition where a perfectly serviceable airplane that is under control comes into contact with terrain. There is often little warning.

Then there is the other extreme. If a pilot loses situational awareness it doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong with the airplane. It could mean the pilot just got confused or is reading instruments incorrectly. Stating "something is wrong" is common in those cases when in fact nothing is wrong with the airplane.

With respect to 703 Beavers, if it's being operated within the regulations and limitations of airplane, equipment and pilot there is very little chance of CFIT or loss of situational awareness. Just a glance out the window (the very essense of what flying VFR is) should correct any such situation.

[gli77]

With regards to a CVR in a Beaver I think Boeingboy is bang on with his response about it being a single pilot aircraft and therefore the information gathered is likely not going to be much of a benefit.

But for FDR's I would disagree with CID's responses. His numbers and statements are not in line with what would be required for a beaver, more like what is required for a 737.

It is conceivable to have a recorder capable of recording engine paramters, flight control inputs/positions, bus voltage and ptt switch positions, which is about all there would be to record. This could be easily done and installed if the motivation was there. It's always amazing what you can do when you want to.

[CID]

It is conceivable to have a recorder capable of recording engine paramters, flight control inputs/positions, bus voltage and ptt switch positions, which is about all there would be to record. This could be easily done and installed if the motivation was there. It's always amazing what you can do when you want to.

gli77,

My comments were based on equipment that's available now. It appears you have some experience with such systems.

Do you have information about an available flight recorder like you've described? And how about sensors. Do you know of any sensors are "easier" to install than their 737 conterparts?

What engine parameters would you record? Do you think manifold pressure and RPM would be good for piston engines or should CHT and EGT for each cylinder be required too? Perhaps throttle position would be good too.

Personally, I don't know of any technology that's available that can sense and record any of the parameters you've mentioned any differently than current systems used on larger aircraft. Whatever sensors you use can't jam anything if they fail and need to be environmentally qualified for their installed location. In otherwords, you can't use something you got from Canadian Tire.

Any idea what it would cost to design and certify such a system? I know of some approved systems made by Altair that are turbine engine trend montors. Not full blown flight recorders but they can record exceedances.

http://www.altairavionics.aero/altairho ... ?role_id=0

Even those systems are several thousand dollars but pretty light.

I do know that "little" airplanes like King Airs use flight recorders that are identical or similar to the types used in large airplanes. One popular CVR is the Fairchild A100. They made a model GA100 for smaller airplanes that didn't need a TSO'd unit but the GA100 wasn't any lighter or smaller. Just cheaper.

[gli77]

CID I don't think you are coming at this from an engineering perspective.

Engine parameters are easily recorded and that technology is available in the general aviation market from such companies as Shadin. You can record what ever you like as there is a probe/sensor available for every parameter.

Flight control positions are easily recorded via RVDT's & LVDT's.

The information is analog and would have go through an A/D converter which in the case of a Beaver would be pretty simple, and could likley be built into the recorder.

The recorder itself would be failry simple as we are only talking about 20 or 30 paramters in this hypothetical discussion.

A 737 or similar aircraft records hundreds of parameters as there are hundreds of parameters to be recorded. Avionics suites for transport category aircraft are complicated and make use of a central bus structure for the transmission and conversion of data. In this hypothetical example of a Beaver it is as simple as it comes.

The point is that technically there is no reason a flight data recording system could not be installed in an aircraft like the Beaver, and in the future new aircraft in that category may very well have them. At the moment the road block is motivation.

[KISS_MY_TCAS]

Widow,
You say that having some info on the last few minutes of the flight would make the families grateful, to a point I disagree. I think a transcript would make you grateful, to hear the tapes holds the potential to cause far stronger feelings than you can imagine, and not necessarily in a positive way. I have listened to countless fatal accident CVRs, and the tone says far more than the dialect, I am not sure this is the way the families wish to remember their lost ones. I have heard some nasty ones that really choked me up having never known or even seen a picture of the person involved, I could not imagine hearing a recording like that of a deceased loved one. Yes, a CVR could be beneficial, but I am not convinced close family should have to endure hearing their loved ones demise in that manner. It is a terrible way to remember them, but I agree even the transcripts could answer a few questions.

[Widow]

You are absolutely right that many people could not bear to hear ... the group of families around me have talked a lot about all the many aspects of this ... what we wish for, how some of us can or cannot handle certain things. I could not bear to see my husbands body. I did not want to remember him that way. At the time, I had a two-month baby, so that may have affected my judgement ... but I don't regret that decision. I don't know that I would want to listen to such tapes. But I know those in our "group" who would, and could handle it. Knowing one or more of the individuals on board, that listener may be able to understand something that is said differently from anyone else. This is just speculation of course ...

All in all, if gli77 is right and an FDR could easily and relatively inexpensively be designed for an aircraft such as a Beaver, if a CVR and ULB could easily be built into a fire/waterproof box ... then for safety's sake it should be mandated for commercial ops ... From my armchair quarterback position, of course!

[gli77]

Hold on there Widow. I said that technically it can be done, and I would suspect you will see it more and more on new aircraft. The non-technical obstacles to implementing a data recording system on existing small aircraft are numerous and quite large. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[CID]

Engine parameters are easily recorded and that technology is available in the general aviation market from such companies as Shadin. You can record what ever you like as there is a probe/sensor available for every parameter.

I’m familiar with the Shadin products. In many ways they are similar to the Altair line. One of their latest (ETM for engine trend monitor) allows for recording and storage of several parameters. It’s designed for turbine engines so it can’t really record piston engine parameters like EGT, CHT or manifold pressure. Furthermore it uses some pretty specific RPM and fuel flow signals that just aren’t available on an airplane like a Beaver without a great deal of modification. Another issue is that it’s not crash resistant, fire resistant or water/fuel/oil proof.

The Shadin ETM is a very capable, costs SEVERAL (over 10) thousand dollars and it falls short of being a flight recorder. Remember, that 10 grand gives you a box of parts that needs to be installed and certified.

http://www.shadin.com/products/etm/heli/index.html

Flight control positions are easily recorded via RVDT's & LVDT's.

That’s quite true. So it looks like the Beaver would use the same technology used in the 737. The lower end aviation grade transducers are around $1000. If we need to record aileron, elevator and rudder that’s $3K. Add in the trims, and you’re up to $6K. Throw in the Flaps, throttle, mixture and maybe even the dilute lever and you’re up to $10K.

I should mention that companies like Gemco and Patriot (Ametek) make lower cost cable/reel transducers that may be more appropriate for a Beaver. Those are about $500 each. Unfortunately there’s a part on them that wears and has to be replaced occasionally.

The information is analog and would have go through an A/D converter which in the case of a Beaver would be pretty simple, and could likley be built into the recorder.

That’s true and it’s already been done. The existing ARINC 573 recorders that are typical in newer large airplanes use a FDAU (Flight data acquisition unit) which is the box I mentioned earlier that weighs about 15 pounds (or more) and costs anywhere between $10K and $80K. They are available for anything from 11 to 88 parameters. It may be possible to develop a lower cost FDAU for a Beaver but the big obstacle is the market. It’s pretty easy to make a $300 TV when the market is in the millions. It’s a bigger challenge when your market is more like a few hundred. The development, design and tooling costs would be divided among fewer people.

http://www.meggitt-avionics.co.uk/stati ... element=25

The ARINC 542 recorders have a built-in FDAU that can sense many existing analog formats. Those of course are more expensive and the ones currently available record only up to 17 parameters.

http://www.l-3ar.com/PDF_Files/MKT012.pdf

The recorder itself would be failry simple as we are only talking about 20 or 30 paramters in this hypothetical discussion.

Except keep in mind that the recorder needs to be able to withstand crash forces, fire and immersion in water, oil, gasoline, and other vital aircraft fluids. There's also a penetration test where a steel pin is rammed into the recorder with a 500 pound weeght. I don’t think Ipods would do that. How much do you figure it would cost to develop a simple recorder for a Beaver that is water/oil/fuel proof and can take about 3400 Gs, 1100 Degrees C?

A 737 or similar aircraft records hundreds of parameters as there are hundreds of parameters to be recorded. Avionics suites for transport category aircraft are complicated and make use of a central bus structure for the transmission and conversion of data. In this hypothetical example of a Beaver it is as simple as it comes.

The current rules require no more than 88 parameters unless additional data is available on the bus. That’s a pretty easy interface for an airplane with a data concentrator as you mentioned. Surprisingly, the majority of commercial airliners flying in the US (including older 737s) record no more than 17 parameters. Only the newer ones (built after 1989) are subject to the 88 parameter rule.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#625_33

The point is that technically there is no reason a flight data recording system could not be installed in an aircraft like the Beaver, and in the future new aircraft in that category may very well have them. At the moment the road block is motivation.

I have to disagree that motivation is the only block for airplanes like the Beaver. You haven’t really presented any technology that isn’t currently available. Price is still the biggest issue. Using the information provided I still see at least $50K to get a certified and useful system installed and we haven’t even included a voice recorder. Furthermore rigging a Beaver with a flight data recorder will turn a simple safe design into an installation and maintenance nightmare. Can you imagine the bother of having to piss around in the bush with an LVDT that is dangling from your aileron? How about grounding your Beaver from conducting commercial VFR flights after 3 days because your FDR is broken?

[gli77]

Wow CID I can certainly see why people become frustrated with you.

Shadin does have instruments for piston engines and that was not my point. My point was that there exists the probes/sensors already for engines for monitoring. They are basic and been around for some time. I used Shadin as an example of engine montioring, meaning that the same style system could be used for engine parameter recording.

An FDAU would not be needed just a simple A/D converter which is simple and easily installed. No need to go A453, A429 will do for what is required.

Your testing stats are humourous. I recently dealt with Honeywell for seepage into a model of their recorded causing corrosion. Transport category aircraft. Their solution was simple and effective....tape a plastic cover over the recorder

I am not going to bother presenting any technology as you infer. Basically because I was speaking from an engineering viewpoint and the simplicity involved. And I believe I said a couple of times that a CVR would hold no value in that category of aircraft. Your statements about the nightmare about rigging an FDR system and the dangling LVDT speak volumes to me.

[Mitch Cronin]

Volumes eh? I don't know what those volumes might include, but that was my first thought when you said rvdt's or lvdt's could be used on a Beaver... Sure, but at what cost, and who's gonna want to pay for it, and how do you get the installations approved cheaply, and how much to maintain, and what new potential for problems will all those rvdt's present... etc..etc...etc...
Yessir, from an engineering perspective, it's certainly possible... Practically speaking though... - and in the real world, that really counts - it'll probably be a frosty day in hell before anyone ever does all that!

[gli77]

Holy shit folks. We're talking about a simple system to monitor a few parameters on a Beaver. A potentiometer would even work for flight control positions. In this hypothetical example you do not need to make use of a 737 FDR system. It's similar to a TCAS II versus a TCAD system. And as I've said in my own posts it will likely never happen in current aircraft but will likely make its way into new aircraft. I've installed FDR's and CVR in helicopter air taxi operations, and seen Aviat Husky's with autopilots, and believe it or not they worked.

[CID]

Your testing stats are humourous. I recently dealt with Honeywell for seepage into a model of their recorded causing corrosion. Transport category aircraft. Their solution was simple and effective....tape a plastic cover over the recorder

Sorry if I frustrated you gli77. It wasn't my intent. I'm just trying understand your statements and in particular how you consider my comments incorrect or even "humourous".

From your statements I assume you're an engineer. From that perspective, what would you consider to be reasonable specifications for flight data recorder for a Beaver in terms of survivability?

What kind of crash forces would it need to withstand? How about fire and liquids? And where would it be installed?

A potentiometer would even work for flight control positions.

I agree. The cable and reel devices I mentioned earlier use potentiometers. Like I said, they're about $500 each. They use environmentally qualified wire-wound potentiometers but they still have to be installed in an area that isn't exposed to the elements. Potentiometers aren't very resistant (hey that's a pun!) to exposure to the elements.

[gli77]

CID I was refering to other members that go off on tangents with your posts. I can see there point of view.

Submit a P.O. and I will get back to you with your spec. data.

My point is and was that a recording system for an aircraft such as a Beaver would not be too complicated and could be done. There are many examples of simplified avionics for the general aviation market such as TCAD.

Thinking about it more you would not even need an A/D converter. Record the voltage or resistance values and then convert them if needed when the information is retreived.

Again it is possible for light aircraft but not likely to happen for existing aircraft.

[CID]

CID I was refering to other members that go off on tangents with your posts. I can see there point of view.

Hey, I'm just trying to figure out your statements. If you're going to state that I'm full of shit about something, that's fine. But then be prepared to back it up. That's all.

Submit a P.O. and I will get back to you with your spec. data.

Hey, I thought this was just a friendly exchange of information. I didn't know we could get paid!

There are many examples of simplified avionics for the general aviation market such as TCAD.

Yes I agree. However there are many different methods of scaling down systems. A TCAD (A manufcaturer's trademark) or TAS (as the regulators call it) isn't capable of issuing RAs like TCAS II and its not bound to the same MOPS as TCAS I. TCAS II needs extra equipment like a Mode S transponder. There is no requirment for TAS to display traffic on a traffic display but many have the capability.

TAS is a form of traffic alerting equipment but it just doesn't do the same thing as TCAS II and doesn't guarantee the performance of TCAS I.

Other methods of simplification for use in smaller airplanes is quite apparent in communications equipment. For example, an ARINC VHF COM costs thousands of dollars whereas you can but a GA COM for a few hundred brand new! It serves the exact same purpose and besides the transmitter power is just as capable. It's cheaper because the hardware, software and environmental standards that the unit must meet are lower.

So how does that relate to FDRs? The imaginary Beaver FDR needs to do the same thing as the "real" FDRs that are in large airplanes. They need to record parameters and resist damage after a crash. The only thing you can "simplify" is waving strict adherance to the TSO with regard to form factor and recording methods.

Record the voltage or resistance values and then convert them if needed when the information is retreived.

How would you do that? I don't know of any "voltage" or "resistance" recorders that store voltages and resistances. Sorry, but that statement doen't make any sense. As a matter of fact it really casts doubt on your engineering abilities unless you're aware of some really reolutionary techniques that I don't know about. Please explain.

[gli77]

CID you certainly do not seem to have the experience to put 2 and 2 together. Against my better judgement I am going to reply to you.

Recording voltage and resistance is not a new technology. Recorders and analyzer technology is quite old.

A quick search found it exists here http://ca.fluke.com/caen/products/Fluke ... eProducts)

and here http://www.veriteq.com/voltage-current- ... /index.htm

In a simple form the voltage/resistance etc is measured and written to memory at the specified sampling time.

Now before you come back spouting some reg or TSO try to put 2 and 2 together and understand that my point is that in the case of a Beaver, it is possible to devise a system of recording a few parameters that could assist in an accident investigation. It could be as simple as engine parameters only.

In the case of AQW if there had been an engine monitor with a sealed memory recording the last 10 minutes of the flight then that information would be very valuable to some folks.

Obviously there is no mandate for such a system to exist and if there was one proposed there would be opposition to it. But from my education and work experience I know that a simple system could be installed in GA aircraft.

My point with the TCAS versus TCAD is that the concept was built for transport aircraft and then simplified and applied to smaller aircraft. All the features required for transport category are not required for GA and hence a cheaper, simplified system can be built and sold.

[mapledell]

Of course technically it could be done. Most GA operators would oppose it based on cost, as often spending $1 is too much. It can be a crappy industry some days.

[CID]

In a simple form the voltage/resistance etc is measured and written to memory at the specified sampling time.

OK. So how exactly do you propose we convert the "voltage/resistance etc" so we can store it to memory without using an A/D converter?

Do you see now how your original statement about not needing an A/D converter seems incorrect?

As for the rest of the discussion, I think we're just going in circles. Maybe the we should just end it. I say flight recorders for 703 airplanes would be too expensive and complicated to effectively instal and they wouldn't improve safety to a level worthy of all the bother.

But hey, that's just me!

[gli77]

CID you are either extremely thick or justa troll. Either way I am bored with you. Continue annoying someone else.

[Mitch Cronin]

And gli77, you are quite rude. Feel better?

The sad thing is, if the two of you were face to face, I bet you'd see eye to eye on many things.... Amazing what the potency of anonymity will do to a persons character.