[SystemSafety] MH370

Tue Mar 11 13:41:15 CET 2014

Large commercial aircraft already transmit their position and other
parameters to other aircraft, via mode S extended squitter, and in some
areas (some USA airspace AFAIR) by ADSB over VHF data link. If aircraft
recorded some of the data they received from other aircraft, then there
would be the possibility of determining the last position of an aircraft
before catastrophic failure from the recordings stored by other aircraft
in the vicinity, even in areas where there is no radar cover. This could
speed up the recovery of the FDR and CVR.

Whether this would be viable depends on the range at which data can be
received from other aircraft, and the density of aircraft in the airspace.

David Crocker, Escher Technologies Ltd.
http://www.eschertech.com
Tel. +44 (0)20 8144 3265 or +44 (0)7977 211486

On 11/03/2014 10:07, Chris Hills wrote:
>
> Memory may be cheap but an EPIRB is self-contained.  It needs no
> external connections or wiring.  No point in adding any complexity
> (weight, power requirements, connectors, wiring and systems in the
> aircraft etc).    With no connections to the aircraft wiring or power
> supply the reto fitting is far easier, cheaper and the system is more
> cost effective.
>
>  
>
> As it is only going to be needed for locating aircraft that have sunk
> it only needs to be on a mount at activates  at  a depth of say  10
> metres and a life of 24 or 48 hours.  24 might be a bit short if it is
> in the middle of nowhere and  the weather is bad.
>
>  
>
> Once you have found the EPIRB the aircraft will not be far away
> compared to the current search area and that for AF447. Then you can
> recover the data from the FDR and CVR.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Matthew Squair [mailto:mattsquair at gmail.com]
>
>  
>
> Yep, like an EPIRB. But if you're going to do that, well memory is cheap.
>
>
> Matthew Squair
>
>  
>
> MIEAust, CPEng
>
> Mob: +61 488770655
>
> Email; Mattsquair at gmail.com <mailto:Mattsquair at gmail.com>
>
> Web: http://criticaluncertainties.com
>
>
> On 11 Mar 2014, at 8:13 pm, Chris Hills <safetyyork at phaedsys.com
> <mailto:safetyyork at phaedsys.com>> wrote:
>
>     Actually you don't need a detachable FDR or CVR.  All you need is
>     a detachable simple distress beacon with a life of 48 hours. If
>     you can find that it would narrow the search field to say, a 10
>     mile radius,   rather than thousands of square miles.  Then you
>     can find the wreckage and the black boxes far faster.
>
>      
>
>     A small distress beacon would be smaller in size, mass and
>     complexity, very cheap (comparatively) and easier to mount.
>
>      
>
>     Regards
>
>        Chris
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:*systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
>     <mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
>     [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] *On
>     Behalf Of *Matthew Squair
>     *Sent:* 10 March 2014 23:28
>     *To:* Peter Bernard Ladkin
>     *Cc:* systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
>     <mailto:systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
>     *Subject:* Re: [SystemSafety] MH370
>
>      
>
>     Sure, but over the years there have also been a number of lost at
>     sea accidents where either the FDR or CVR were not recovered or
>     were recovered damaged. Dave Warren's original proposal was aimed
>     squarely at that problem and was for a foam cored blister pack
>     with a simple wire spool recorder and die pack, the concept being
>     that it would be mounted on the external fuselage (around the
>     tail) and popped off in an explosion or impact induced hull
>     over-pressure.
>
>      
>
>     On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Peter Bernard Ladkin
>     <ladkin at rvs.uni-bielefeld.de <mailto:ladkin at rvs.uni-bielefeld.de>>
>     wrote:
>
>
>     > On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:17, Matthew Squair <mattsquair at gmail.com
>     <mailto:mattsquair at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Absolutely, nothing is perfect. But would I prefer an alternate
>     to months of trawling the abyssal plain with a side scanning
>     sonar? You betcha. Especially if it's a very, very cheap alternative.
>
>     In the last twenty years, there are just two cases of lost-at-sea
>     I can think of in which evidence from the hull was *not* required
>     in addition to FDR data to determine cause. There are five cases
>     in which in-air disintegration or burning, which are not
>     identifiable from FDR data, initiated the hull loss, and there is
>     one further case in which physical evidence was required to show
>     there was no anomaly (that it was, in effect, murder/suicide). Two
>     against six isn't a persuasive ratio.
>
>     I can go through the records to make this definitive rather than
>     "I can think of", if necessary.
>
>     The result of a cost-benefit analysis, even for the past, let
>     alone for conceivable future cases, is not at all evident to me.
>
>     PBL
>
>
>     Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis
>     Limited
>
>
>
>      
>
>     -- 
>
>     *Matthew Squair*
>
>     MIEAust CPEng
>
>      
>
>     Mob: +61 488770655
>
>     Email: MattSquair at gmail.com <mailto:MattSquair at gmail.com>
>
>     Website: www.criticaluncertainties.com
>     <http://criticaluncertainties.com/>
>
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     The System Safety Mailing List
>     systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
>     <mailto:systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20140311/0595c852/attachment-0001.html>