Black Boxes for GA Aircraft...Good or Bad?

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Greengears,


Do you think that all flight schools should
have these type of black boxes installed in their aircrafts?


Very bad, to answer your title. One more certified thing to pay for,
with no or little increase in safety (how many GA accidents are there
with unknown cause that have a chance of being clearer with such a
gadget?). The only purpose of such a device is to give the media a
chance to report more in the Lidle case. Sad!


But most of us already do have black boxes. My GPS tracks my
course/speed/altitude/etc for about a year back. My EDM tracks all my
engine trends, all EGTs, fuel flows, CHTs, event OAT (in case I was in
an ice accident).
It wouldn't be hard for the NTSB to get as much info from my plane as
the 80's era black boxes provided.

That assumes it survives the wreck.

Matt

Matt Whiting writes:

That assumes it survives the wreck.

Small, solid-state devices can survive some extraordinarily high
accelerations, even if they aren't necessarily built to do so.
There's certainly a good chance that something like a flash memory
device will survive intact.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
That assumes it survives the wreck.

Small, solid-state devices can survive some extraordinarily high
accelerations, even if they aren't necessarily built to do so.
There's certainly a good chance that something like a flash memory
device will survive intact.

We designed something similar a few years back (still being evaluated
by the SE FSDO, I believe) although our goal was long-term recording of
stress on the airframe. We designed it to include optional aircraft
data, but your average 30 year old C-172 or Warrior just doesn't have
much in the way of electrical data to record. None of the usual stuff
(control position) is there.

You could instrument everything of course, the the price would be
prohibitive (i.e. no one would pay for it).

While we were most interested in things like pulling so many G's that
the wings came off, the FAA rejected our first design because we could
potentially lose the last 100 ms. or so of data (i.e. the actual crash,
after the wings pulled off). We hadn't considered that important (it's
sort of "after the fact"), but they pointed out that in a lot of
mountain crashes the first sign of a problem is hitting the mountain.
We implemented a ferro-ram buffer (in front of the main storage) - both
non-volatile. Even if the pins got pulled off the IC, the die could
still be read (with difficulty).

"jmk" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mxsmanic wrote:
That assumes it survives the wreck.

Small, solid-state devices can survive some extraordinarily high
accelerations, even if they aren't necessarily built to do so.
There's certainly a good chance that something like a flash memory
device will survive intact.

We designed something similar a few years back (still being evaluated
by the SE FSDO, I believe) although our goal was long-term recording of
stress on the airframe. We designed it to include optional aircraft
data, but your average 30 year old C-172 or Warrior just doesn't have
much in the way of electrical data to record. None of the usual stuff
(control position) is there.

You could instrument everything of course, the the price would be
prohibitive (i.e. no one would pay for it).

While we were most interested in things like pulling so many G's that
the wings came off, the FAA rejected our first design because we could
potentially lose the last 100 ms. or so of data (i.e. the actual crash,
after the wings pulled off). We hadn't considered that important (it's
sort of "after the fact"), but they pointed out that in a lot of
mountain crashes the first sign of a problem is hitting the mountain.
We implemented a ferro-ram buffer (in front of the main storage) - both
non-volatile. Even if the pins got pulled off the IC, the die could
still be read (with difficulty).

Sounds like the FAA is missing the point. If they lose the last 100 ms
before the airplane hits the mountain, big deal. Don't the previous 5 (or
30) minutes tell the story.. Either 1) The airplane was cruising along at 8k
ft and hit a 10k mountain. Or: 2) The airplane stalled and spun down into
the ground. Or: 3) Whatever.

I just don't see how that last 1/10 second is gonna tell anyone much...

KB

Kyle Boatright writes:

I just don't see how that last 1/10 second is gonna tell anyone much...

Ask NASA.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.