Flight Data Recorders

I was reading this article about a Russian air crash - here is an excerpt...

Russian investigators have discovered that the cockpit-voice
recorder from the crashed Itek Air Boeing 737-200 contains no
trace of the ill-fated jet's final flight.

...

MAK adds that the quality of the flight-data recorder information
is "unsatisfactory" because of partial thermal damage to its
magnetic tape, caused by the intense fire which followed the crash.

Which made me think: magnetic tape?! Surely we've come far enough that
we can be using solid-state storage in flight data recorders?

Does anyone know why FDRs would still be using what, to me, is archaic
technology?

*Russian* ??

Michael Henry wrote:
I was reading this article about a Russian air crash - here is an
excerpt...


MAK adds that the quality of the flight-data recorder information
is "unsatisfactory" because of partial thermal damage to its
magnetic tape, caused by the intense fire which followed the crash.

Which made me think: magnetic tape?! Surely we've come far enough that
we can be using solid-state storage in flight data recorders?

Does anyone know why FDRs would still be using what, to me, is archaic
technology?

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:36:59 +1000, Michael Henry
wrote:

I was reading this article about a Russian air crash - here is an excerpt...

Russian investigators have discovered that the cockpit-voice
recorder from the crashed Itek Air Boeing 737-200 contains no
trace of the ill-fated jet's final flight.

...

MAK adds that the quality of the flight-data recorder information
is "unsatisfactory" because of partial thermal damage to its
magnetic tape, caused by the intense fire which followed the crash.

Which made me think: magnetic tape?! Surely we've come far enough that
we can be using solid-state storage in flight data recorders?

Does anyone know why FDRs would still be using what, to me, is archaic
technology?

gee give them a chance! they've only just stopped using wire
recorders.

"Michael Henry" wrote in message
...
I was reading this article about a Russian air crash - here is an
excerpt...

Russian investigators have discovered that the cockpit-voice
recorder from the crashed Itek Air Boeing 737-200 contains no
trace of the ill-fated jet's final flight.

...

MAK adds that the quality of the flight-data recorder information
is "unsatisfactory" because of partial thermal damage to its
magnetic tape, caused by the intense fire which followed the crash.

Which made me think: magnetic tape?! Surely we've come far enough that we
can be using solid-state storage in flight data recorders?

Does anyone know why FDRs would still be using what, to me, is archaic
technology?

This occasionally happens, even though the FDR and CVR have considerable
thermal inertia and are located in a part of the plane that is least
frequently affected by both fire and mechanical damage. Also, the prose
above suggests that there was some data recovered from the cocpit voice
recorder and "some data" is probably more than they would have gotten from
solid state memory.

All the same, there has been a move from magnetic tape and metal foil to
solid state memory in the 20+ years that I have been out of that industry.
However, IMHO, that has been a case of obtaining more detailed data and
information (most of the time) and greatly reduced maintenance cost (the
frequent replacement of tapes and foils was shop maintenance) and accepting
far less robust media in order to accomplish those goals.

Personally, I can see more than one side of the arguments leading to these
changes and I have mixed feelings regarding the wisdom of same.

Peter

"GB" wrote in message
...
Michael Henry wrote in news:00d3a924$0
:
SNIP

It's not all that archaic. Aviation trails the bleeding edge by a
very long margin, and with good reason. The bleeding edge usually
draws blood at some point! I was initially surprised to learn, in
circa 1999, that the B767 didn't use GPS for navigation. I
subsequently learned that they don't need it... GPS isn't really
up to scratch. (I'm not gonna explain that here, that's fodder
for another post!)

GB

GB
You referring to INS?
But they do now use GPS for 'local' navigation (SID, STAR, flextrack etc).
Brian

"GB" wrote in message
...
"Sr20goer" wrote in
:
You referring to INS?
But they do now use GPS for 'local' navigation (SID, STAR, flextrack
etc). Brian

Yes I am, and yes I know. My (maybe badly made) point was that
the new technology wasn't adopted for a very long time after
it had become 'mainstream' in other fields.


GB

No, not badly made, I was just wanting to check it was INS.
I agree re aviation 'lagging' with technology - same philosophy as you,
partly 'accreditation' of equipment, partly 100.1% safety requirement
cheers
Brian

Michael Henry writes:

MAK adds that the quality of the flight-data recorder information
is "unsatisfactory" because of partial thermal damage to its
magnetic tape, caused by the intense fire which followed the crash.

Which made me think: magnetic tape?! Surely we've come far enough that
we can be using solid-state storage in flight data recorders?

Does anyone know why FDRs would still be using what, to me, is archaic
technology?

Co$t is why. And while flash-based systems may offer more survivable
recording; consider the recent Qantas incident, where the
depressurization itself was overwritten by subsequent flight.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"Sr20goer" wrote in
:


"GB" wrote in message
...
Michael Henry wrote in
news:00d3a924$0 :
SNIP

It's not all that archaic. Aviation trails the bleeding edge by a
very long margin, and with good reason. The bleeding edge usually
draws blood at some point! I was initially surprised to learn, in
circa 1999, that the B767 didn't use GPS for navigation. I
subsequently learned that they don't need it... GPS isn't really
up to scratch. (I'm not gonna explain that here, that's fodder
for another post!)

GB

GB
You referring to INS?
But they do now use GPS for 'local' navigation (SID, STAR, flextrack
etc). Brian


No, they use GPS to update the INS.



Bertie

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 13:08:56 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:

Michael Henry writes:

MAK adds that the quality of the flight-data recorder information
is "unsatisfactory" because of partial thermal damage to its
magnetic tape, caused by the intense fire which followed the crash.

Which made me think: magnetic tape?! Surely we've come far enough that
we can be using solid-state storage in flight data recorders?

Does anyone know why FDRs would still be using what, to me, is archaic
technology?

Co$t is why. And while flash-based systems may offer more survivable
recording; consider the recent Qantas incident, where the
depressurization itself was overwritten by subsequent flight.

They could put in a bigger chip for longer recording. I thought most
DRs were only about 1/2 hr looping?

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Sr20goer" wrote in
:


"GB" wrote in message
...
Michael Henry wrote in
news:00d3a924$0 :
SNIP

GB
You referring to INS?
But they do now use GPS for 'local' navigation (SID, STAR, flextrack
etc). Brian


No, they use GPS to update the INS.
Bertie

Bertie
Can we call it one all?
I'm talking of the derivation of the nav data - the GPS engine is used for
local navigation data, how it gets to the display may well be via the INS
but the GPS engine is still the source.
cheers
Brian