Talk:Cockpit voice recorder

message: I added a  to the assertion that the CVR is usually isntalled in the tail, since the Kameroon crash of a brand new Boeing 737-800 bears out that its CVR was physically in the nose, found only a month after the crash, burried at a depth of 15 meters of mud. The FDR from the tail was found relatively quickly. --Mareklug talk 16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  typical installation near the plane's tail? 

message: Should this article include a discussion of the privileged (or non-privileged) status of CVR data (the actual audio recordings, as opposed to transcripts)?  My understanding is that the laws of both the US and Canada severely restrict the disclosure of actual CVR audio (and also limit the power of the courts to demand such disclosure), but that laws in many other countries are far less stringent on this point.  Apparently, this has become a sore point in relations between pilots and airlines when flights go to countries where CVR audio is freely disclosable.  Comments from anyone who is more familiar with this subject?  Richwales (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access to CVR audio 

message: These devices are criminally negligent.
Two hours is grossly inadequate. Can't the bastards afford more than a C-120?
Plainly, anything less than a full recording of a flight is GROSSLY INADEQUATE in safety terms. In the event of an incident, it is axiomatic the entire flight is of interest.
It is commonly reported in the media that data could not be recovered. That data is over-written routinely passes without comment. Plainly utterly unacceptable.
They are monstrosuly, hideously, unashamedly misanthropic devices as they stand. They grossly deceive the public into believing (incorrectly) that air safety is taken seriously. It is not.
These devices in their impaired form are a gross insult to humanity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.207.16 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obsolete thinking. Older devices were necessarily heavy and fragile because they were tape. They had to be heavily armored to survive anything at all, and they required regular maintenance. In modern times, redundancy would be a much better strategy. We can do 48 kHz uncompressed audio at only 345.6 megabytes per hour. Current SSD (laptop drive) sizes are something like 600 gigabytes, which would be 1736 hours. Probably you'd rather pick an even smaller device, just a single chip, or add video. With the reduced weight of modern hardware, you could put a copy in every major part of the airplane: each wingtip, each engine (often found separate from the rest of the wreckage), the tip of each tail component, the top and bottom of the front and rear, and so on. Remember that we recovered the vertical tail piece of Air France Flight 447 but it didn't contain a flight recorder. 24.170.165.214 (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminally Negligent Device 

message: From 1942: "On February  Todt dined with
him; by : a.m. next morning he was dead, his charred remains lying in
the wreckage of his Heinkel which had crashed on takeoﬀ at Rastenburg.
Hitler was desolate at the loss. He ordered the air ministry to design a
cockpit recorder, to install in future planes, to register the cause of any
accidents." Roger491127 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: =When was it invented?

message: I am confused by the sentence:
Like the flight data recorder (FDR), the CVR is typically mounted in the tail section (the empennage) of an airplane to maximize the likelihood of its survival in a crash.
because in a tv program about investigations of flight crashes they said that one of the boxes is places in the cockpit end of  the airplane and the other in the tail section. The sentence in this article says that both are placed in the tail section (the empennage). So which source is true? Roger491127 (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are they placed?