Talk:Flight recorder

message: Oppose 
This article is about all types of flight recorders, the other Flight data recorder is about one type. Merging is impossible. Meggar (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The length of Flight data recorder is too long to be merged with this article. Flight recorder discusses flight recorders in general, while the Flight data recorder article exclusively provides information on the flight data recorder. The articles should not be merged in my opinion. --Jesant13 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

text: There is no use of the term flight recording except as it refers to the product of a flight recorder. Data from radar records, ground voice tapes, and so on are assembled after an incident; there is no recording of a particular flight other than that made by a flight recorder. If the article was still unclear before, it should be clear now with the addition of a photo of a cockpit voice recorder, that flight recorders include both CVR and FDR. One can not be merged without the other. If someone wants to they can put up a merge tag suggesting combining them all into one big article. For now I am removing the old tag. Meggar 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: Those are some stong opinions, but they are not a discussion. Many people have contribted their thoughts and work to these pages, some with knowlege of rail and air use of recorders, some lay people. They are all important. The opinions of lay people without actual contact with the subject are very important in helping to adjust articles to get across some difficult ideas. I am reseting this, and hope to talk with you as we research this topic further. Meggar 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a perfect example of WP:OWN#Comments. So far I haven't seen a single actual justification for the revert, and there has been considerable discussion of potential merges. I don't really care enough about the subject to get into a revert war about it, but if no actual commentary opposing a merge appears soon I'm going to re-merge the pages. Chris Cunningham 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Followed through on this. Chris Cunningham 11:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensixe redirecting and merging without discussion 

message: I set off the 2 last paragraphs into a separate section called "Cockpit image recorder recommendation" - if anyone knows, it would be useful to include in that section the reason why the airlines have pushed back.  The $8000 figure is misleading because everything is about extra weight on the aircraft adding to the ongoing fuel consumption, so if the image recorder is 150kg of weight then that needs to be mentioned as a reason going against adoption.  Tempshill (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockpit image recorder recommendation section 

message: In connection with the fall of aircraft, can be urgent the following
proposal (new device for "black box" of aircraft) "catapult module of the
memory "of the black box" of aircraft"
The usual "black box" of aircraft am established stationarily, and
with the emergency, the fall of aircraft it falls into the severe
conditions: fire, sinks to the large depths and, etc
It is proposed to supplement "black box" of aircraft - by catapult
modules of memory, which with the emergencies fire back from the aircraft
and descend to the earth on parachute.
Similar modules of memory would possess the following
characteristics:
•The copy of information, which writes "black box" of aircraft, is
written,
•Autonomously are determined the moment of emergency, the moment of
ejection,
•It descends to the earth beside the aircraft on parachute, thus it
does not fall into the severe conditions of emergency, and they do not
require protection and isolation from the external severe conditions of
emergency,
•It does not sink in the water,
•It has signal of radio system - for the rapid detection.
The contemporary digital modules of the energy-independent memory possess
the great capacity (ten, hundreds of gigas-byte), the small sizes (several
centimeters), the light weight (tens of grams), the small price (tens of
dollars). It is sufficiently easy to introduce the respectively similar
modules of memory in the contemporary aircraft.
Therefore with any emergency there will be the additional guarantee
of the fact that the parameters of emergency will be discovered, and that
similar emergencies will not be repeated in the future.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userdelphi (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal on an improvement in the work of the aircraft 

message: Does anyone actually use the term "flight recorder"?  Everyone I know that has to deal with both flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders calls them by those names, and I *never* hear the term "flight recorder".  If I did, I'd just assume they forgot to say "data".  So I ask: is there really a need for an article for this term?  Wouldn't two separate cross-linked "See also" articles suffice?  If there is a context where this terminology is common, I'd like to know what it is, as that context would drive the content of this article.  70.247.169.206 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a rename to "crash-survivable flight recorder" might be appropriate, spinning off QAR as a separate article?  70.247.169.206 (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight recorder?

message: Please create a single, high-level article on "Black Boxes in Planes, Trains, Ships and Cars" where you can define the scope as vehicle trip/flight/voyage voice and parameter recorders in airplanes, trains, ships, cars and other vehicles, and refer to all the specialized articles from there.
AS A USER coming here for the first time in Aug2010, I am wasting my time bouncing among
* Black_box_(transportation)
* Flight_data_recorder
* Flight_recorder
AS AN EDITOR, I face unnecessary barriers to contributing to the evolution of the site.  (1) Where do I add material?  (2) Where must I look to fix material that might contradict what was added and leave readers in a muddle?  
Here is text that can help evolve the article.  But before edits can be done, one must know where they should go.  I am only a newcomer.  Please decide among yourselves on a hierarchical article structure that can provide a clean foundation upon which the larger Wikipedia community can drive the continuing evolution of these articles.  Vehicle voice/data/location recording will grow in importance as cars add them, insurance companies use them to fight claims, and the Executive Branch claims the right to take them.  
The Last Word in Wikipedia Land is "change".  So here is more information on this topic, it is not the last word, and we need a better basis for supporting change.
==== Suggested text, where does it go? ====
Note: references (in parentheses) are at end.
Black boxes are not  black for the sake suppressing reflections during photographic recording on film, as sometimes suggested (http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/beyond-the-black-box).  The first modern prototype (1957, David Warren, see below) included a cockpit voice recorder and used wire recording, a commercial predecessor to tape recorders. (NYT)  Black boxes are Day-Glo orange now, and use memory chip (since about 1989)(HFRbyL3).   The origin of the "black box" term is obscure and may just be lab slang for a neat gadget with unknown innards.  Warren painted his prototype red. (NYT)
As mentioned, the original black box was designed by David Warren of Australia (1925 - 2010), who had lost his father to an airplane crash when he was still a boy (1934).  He became an aeronautical engineering researcher in the Australian Defense Department, which often lent him out to other agencies. In 1953 Warren worked out an on-board  flight recorder after being called upon to investigate one of the notorious [Comet crashes] (TheAustralian), which diminished Britain's role in jetliner fuselage construction.
Warren produced a paper on his invention in 1954 (NYT), and the first prototype in 1956 (The Australian).  Australians scoffed at his invention, but it and Warren were flown to London, and the British started producing them for their planes in 1958. (NYT)   Fairchild Aviation began American flight recorder production in 1959. (HFRbyL3)
Early American flight data recorders used a five-channel polygraph, but instead of pens on paper, the analog data lines were inscribed by a stylus on Inconel stainless steel foil.  The original five parameters -- heading, altitude, air speed, vertical accelerations, and time tics -- were soon increased to eight by simultaneously inscribing both sides of the foil.  The new parameters were pitch, roll, and flaps.  (HFRbyL3)
Cockpit voice recordings went from wire recording to more perishable but capacious  magnetic tape around 1965, and flight data was multiplexed and tracked onto the same tape.  By the late 1960s, 64 12-bit channels sampled at 1 Hz were being recorded for the entire duration of round-trip trans-Pacific flights.  (HFRbyL3)
Fairchild's flight recorder business passed to Schlumberger, Loral, Lockheed Martin and L3.  The majority of today's black boxes are made by L3 Aviation Recorders, Sarasota, FL.  Models commonly seen in 2010 have 256 sensor records logged 128 times a second, plus 30 minutes of voice, recently increased to 180 min. (HFRbyL3)
====REFERENCES====
(HFRbyL3): HISTORY OF FLIGHT RECORDERS by L3 Aviation Recorders Inc. 
http://www.l-3ar.com/html/history.html
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS parent company 
http://www.l-3com.com/about-l3/general_info.aspx
U.S. Patent 3,075,192 for CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE invented by Professor James J. Ryan at the University of Minnesora in 1959  
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=03075192    
DAVID WARREN OBITUARIES 2010
The Australian
The New York Times
AP wire
With thanks in advance to everyone for the work it will take to cover an area that is not sleepy anymore.
Jerry-va (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plea to create a hierarchy with an INTRO article on TOP

message: (HFRbyL3): HISTORY OF FLIGHT RECORDERS by L3 Aviation Recorders Inc. 
http://www.l-3ar.com/html/history.html
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS parent company 
http://www.l-3com.com/about-l3/general_info.aspx
U.S. Patent 3,075,192 for CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE invented by Professor James J. Ryan at the University of Minnesora in 1959  
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=03075192    
DAVID WARREN OBITUARIES 2010
The Australian
The New York Times
AP wire
With thanks in advance to everyone for the work it will take to cover an area that is not sleepy anymore.
Jerry-va (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: REFERENCES

message: Four years ago a proposal was put forward for sorting out the mess that if the various articles on this subject. At the time this was held up by an editor who has now apparently left. I'm going to get to reimplementing the proposal made in 2007 in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge. The current situation is a mess for all the reasons so clearly described already. treesmill (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Ditto. There's much text in common and it makes no sense to duplicate it. Flambe (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-merging 

message: I've always thought that it was, look here http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/inventions.htm and i guess more extensive google searches would confirm this :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.163.246 (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression as an entire outsider is, it's like the invention of photography, automobile, machine gun, computer. That is, an idea was in the air but initial crude versions were limited and only modestly useful. Various bright and industrious inventors made various improvements and gradually the thing became practical and widespread. Historians who want to compose a ripping tale can concentrate on the efforts of one genius, but that story ignores most of the history of how the thing arose. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasnt this an Australian invention? 

message: The inventions and patents by Professor James J. "Crash" Ryan, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Minnesota from 1931 to 1963 together with the inventions and patents by Edmund A. Boniface, Jr., an aeronautical engineer with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation from 1950 to 1978 are the U.S. patented devices that were developed in the 1950s and 1960s.  
These 2 inventors referred to their devices by the correct patent name.  James J. Ryan's U.S. Patent Number 3,075,192 for a CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE was filed on December 21, 1959 and approved January 22, 1963.  Ryan's device was for "use on aircraft for the purposes of recording data relating to altitude, air speed, vertical acceleration, direction of flight, time, and the like".  The link to Ryan's U.S. Patent is attached and makes clear the invention was for an "aviation recorder to collect and record DATA". http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=03075192 
Edmund A. Boniface, Jr. U.S. Patent Number 3,327,067 for a COCKPIT SOUND RECORDER was filed on February 4, 1963 and approved June 20, 1967 and he consistently referred to it in his conversations with me as an "aviation recorder for the purpose of recording SOUNDS including the VOICE of the pilot".  The original filing for the COCKPIT SOUND RECORDER was on February 2, 1961 and at that time patent was named AIRCRAFT COCKPIT SOUND RECORDER; that patent attempt was abandoned due to views by some that it was "an invasion of privacy".  The device provided a progressive erasing/recording loop (lasting 30 minutes or more) of all SOUNDS and VOICE and NOISE which could be overheard in the cockpit during a catastrophic aviation event.  As someone on this editing talk page mentions the manufacturing of the devices in the United States began with Fairchild and passed to Schlumberger, Loral, Lockheed Martin, and L3.  In the past decade it has been L3 Communications AVIATION RECORDERS division.  The two (or more) AVIATION RECORDERS in the so called "Black Box" are for "recording data and for recording sounds and voices".  The link to Boniface's U.S. Patent is attached and makes clear the invention was for an "aviation recorder to collect and record SOUNDS".http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=03327067
In addition, Boniface referenced an earlier U.S. Patent in his COCKPIT SOUND RECORDER patent.  That reference was to Fritz Albrecht's U.S. Patent 2,992,296 for a CRASH DATA RECORDER for use on aircraft.  The link to Albrecht's U.S. Patent dated July 1961 is attached.http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=02992296
The above patents are part of the various iterations of the development of AVIATION RECORDERS in the United States and as those devices were manufactured in the United States. I am writing a book on this development as it took place in the United States. 
BBoniface (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The question here is why there is a popular perception of the device(s) being invented elsewhere. It's somewhat questionable to state that the existence of a patent somewhere implies the "true" inventor. What looks likely here is that there were independent inventions. We need reliable secondary sources establishing the veracity of your claim and not just the patents. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Just remember: the Americans invented everything.  At least that's what the Americans like to believe. The reality is very different.  They invented hardly anything.  Even Edison was the world's most prolific invention thief. 31.48.73.38 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: An October 1962 Flight advertisement for "Midas Flight Data Recorders" for the VC10 here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.161 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct naming for AVIATION RECORDERS in the U.S. and correct identification of U.S. Patents by Ryan, Albrecht, and Boniface 

message: Can somebody please correct the miss-information & or lies' on the main page. & correct the record to reflect the truth .... the truth that the inverter of the black box / cockpit voice recorder / data voice recorder / flight recorder' is Australian inverter David Warren. 
(CNN) -- David Warren, the man who invented the airline flight data recorder commonly, though now incorrectly, known as the "black box," has died in his native Australia, the defense department said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/07/21/flight.recorder.inventor/index.html
Claiming that James J. "Crash" Ryan invented the flight recorder is just another example of american lies, propaganda & thievery. 
The USA has a third world patent system when anybody can claim another persons works,creations & inventions. ... Kinda like the Chinese patent system is now doing to the Americans ... China just patents other peoples inventions & claims them as their own. (( just like the USA has done for 2 centries now )
David Warren invented the Flight data recorder ... not some 3erd world yank. 
Couldsomebody also add the following news reports / articles to the source collection / main page.
Cheers.
&
&
& 
&
&
&
&
&
&
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.176.208 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the last thread posted here by an anon ip (but which geolated to Brisbane instead of Helsinki), as well as falling very close to WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM, your comments seem to include personal insults and so may well be promptly removed. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by a "3erd world yank"? "Cheers". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see. Thanks, anon Aussie IP. Glad I waited the two and a bit years. So do you have any issue with the content of the article? Meanwhile, you might enjoy reading this thesis. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is wrong  ... It was Australian David Warren who invented the Flight Recorder. ( Ask the Smithsonian )  

message: I'm removing the first paragraph of the section about David Warren's invention. It closely paraphrases the discussion in  , a book published before the paragraph was added to this article. In addition, the source was not cited as a reference. In its place I am putting back the material removed when this was added. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing copied section 

message: There seems to be some confusion in newspaper articles about the inventions that led to the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Some sources used in this article seem to treat them as the same thing. David Warren of Australia was the first to demonstrate a recorder that included voice as well as flight data. The recorder was built in 1957 and demonstrated in 1958. The first commercially successful data recorder was the Ryan VGA flight recorder developed by James J. Ryan and produced by General Mills of Cheerio's fame. It was flying by 1954 but did not record voices. Lockheed later took over its manufacture. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventors and inventions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Flight recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140124051649/http://kenblackbox.com/other/The_ARL_Black_Box_Flight_Recorder.pdf to http://kenblackbox.com/other/The_ARL_Black_Box_Flight_Recorder.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121108143606/http://www.sagemavionics.com/ProdFiles/Brochures/FlightDataManagement/SSFDR.pdf to http://www.sagemavionics.com/ProdFiles/Brochures/FlightDataManagement/SSFDR.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070811035216/http://www.vzlu.cz:80/aplikace/eurocae1.htm to http://www.vzlu.cz/aplikace/eurocae1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100522041848/http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au:80/page/3383/ to http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/page/3383/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140804075150/http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl-7.html to http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl-7.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Once the "pings" are detected would it be possible to download the data without having physical access to the "box"?120.144.137.86 (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Since flight data recorders are typically not watertight, I don't think they can operate at all when submerged, let alone transmit data.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirplentifus (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downloading while submerged. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flight recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319035000/http://www1.umn.edu/news/features/2005/UR_75433_REGION1.html to http://www.umn.edu/news/features/2005/UR_75433_REGION1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flight recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://siiri.tampere.fi/displayObject.do?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.profium.com%2Farchive%2FArchivedObject-8077CE76-2B43-6FAA-D11C-77AAFD6C72E8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002141527/http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/innovations/discoveries/fallen_aircraft.html to http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/innovations/discoveries/fallen_aircraft.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Video clip of 1985 ABC news report interviewing David Warren about his invention
:Are you sure it wasn't 1958, the year when it was in the news? In 1985, Warren would have been sixty, and he doesn't look old enough. I realise they didn't have colour TV in 1958, but this picture may have been colourised. Valetude (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, he looks about 60? The narrator says "... which he and his friends developed in the 1950s and '60s"? The source, ABC's 80 Days that Changed our Lives, is fully detailed at :File:ABC Black Box.ogv. There is no doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: Why don't planes have some type of buoy that can be deployed in the event on a water accident?  24.51.192.49 (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read deployable flight recorders. Dolphin (t) 13:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buoy 

message: Airlines in the United States are only required to record 2 hours of recording time. Whilst the European requirement is 25 hours.  This has caused issues with lost data on several incident investigations in the US.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ubut-pkxSM
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/faa-requiring-airplane-black-boxes-record-25-hours/story?id=97919562 203.220.56.78 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. Both sources look fine to me. I think something should be added.  Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I think this interpretation is incorrect or misleading. The article makes it clear that “a minimum of two hours” refers to the cockpit voice recorder; whereas “17 - 25 hours” refers to the flight data recorder. The specified requirements for the CVR and FDR are very different. It has nothing to do with USA versus Europe. Dolphin (t) 07:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have read the detail - I see the reason for distinguishing between the US and Europe where 25 hour recording time is concerned. Dolphin (t) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: It's not just the investigation of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 that's relevant. As the video shows, since 2018, 10 separate NTSB investigations have been compromised in a similar way. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  recording time