If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
"Peter Clark" wrote in message
... 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? The original CVRs were 1/2 hour looping, carying three channels (or tracks) of audio, and would erase the tape when the parking brake was applied at the destination gate. Part of that was due to a combination of technical necessity and convenience, and part was the dfproduct of negotiation between the interested parties. The reusult was robust, in the sense that the recovery of data did not depent upon any part of the equipment remaining operable I am not familiar with the newer equipment; but would expect that it would have been made functionally similar--with the possible addition of more channels of audio. The original FDRs contained a single use role of stainless steel foil, which was marked by stylii. The result was *extremely* robust, but even the second generation of such recorders had a very limited number of data channels and required frequent depot level maintenance to replace the foil rolls. Solid state memory simply does not have similar survivability and there is virtually no change that it will within the next 25 years. Therefore, solid state memory, in the event that it is actually in use, is simply a way to obtain more channels of data at less monetary cost in those cases where the data can still be recovered. So long as the purpose of the data is to detect failures which can then be resonably predicted, then it is probably a good trade. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
Paul Saccani wrote in
: On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:46:32 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: "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. Aren't both sources integrated via a fast Kalman filter? GPS errors are rapid and errors tend to clump around an accurate position, whilst INS errors are slow and tend to drift away from an accurate position. Integrating the systems via a Kalman filter results in a far more accurate and precise position. No idea. Works well, lasts a long time. When we dont use GPS, we use radio update of another type, usually. VOR DME. Without it, even the best INS can drift appreciably over time. It's not uncommon to see an error of a couple of miles after a long flight, and errors of 20 miles are possible after an ocean crossing. Radio update pretty much eliminates this and I've never seen any map shift whatsoever on a GPS updated system. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
"Paul Saccani" wrote in message ... Aren't both sources integrated via a fast Kalman filter? GPS errors are rapid and errors tend to clump around an accurate position, whilst INS errors are slow and tend to drift away from an accurate position. Integrating the systems via a Kalman filter results in a far more accurate and precise position. Be interested in the technicalities, having been obliged to use a 4th order Chebishev (sp?) filter for some DA years ago - got a URL ? (Too lazy to look atm :-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
David Lesher wrote:
... 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. I can see how solid state storage is more expensive than tape, but I would have thought that by the time you go through the whole certification process the cost of the actual medium is just a small fraction of the total cost... and if the solid state medium offers any benefits over tape than that small extra cost would certainly be justifiable. The other issue you raise really surprises me: the small amount of flight time for which recordings are kept. Some other posts have mentioned half-an-hour loop! Does anyone know what volume of data this entails? Regards, Michael P.S. A quick mental calculation: I can go to Officeworks (in Australia) and buy a 16 Gb memory stick for AU$100. OK, it's not going to meet the same fault-tolerance and quality standards, but let's ignore that for now For those of us in the iPod generation 16 Gb equates to around 300 hours of MP3 music. Obviously you would encode speech differently and fit a lot more than that, but let's not worry about that. Of course you also want to record other parameters (temperatures, pressures, position of controls, etc). I'm just pulling numbers out of the air but let's say you want to record 1,000 different parameters each sampled 10 times a second. Furthermore let's say the data for each parameter is stored as a 32-bit value, which comes out to 40kb of data per second or just under 150 Mb per hour. That's over 100 hours of parameters in our 16 Gb memory stick. Recording voice and data at the same time and I figure you can fit about 80 flight hours in a $100 USB stick. Not bad I'm obviously missing out on some important bits but it has made me wonder: what would be the market for a really small, light, and cheap uncertified flight data recorder... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
What will all these new filter technologies, you still need to sump your
fuel. Too much water, even though the filter will catch it, will still plug it up. RT wrote: "Paul Saccani" wrote in message ... Aren't both sources integrated via a fast Kalman filter? GPS errors are rapid and errors tend to clump around an accurate position, whilst INS errors are slow and tend to drift away from an accurate position. Integrating the systems via a Kalman filter results in a far more accurate and precise position. Be interested in the technicalities, having been obliged to use a 4th order Chebishev (sp?) filter for some DA years ago - got a URL ? (Too lazy to look atm :-) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
jeremy wrote:
GB wrote: Stuff we take for granted now was unthinkable even 10 years ago. I'm not about to claim that I could even begin to guess at what computer technology I'll see 25 years from now. GB The famous example of how short sighted we can be is the famous set of quotes: "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981 "Windows 95 needs at least 8 MB RAM." -- Bill Gates, 1996 "Nobody will ever need Windows 95." -- logical conclusion "You ain't goin' nowhere, son -- you ought to go back to drivin' a truck" Jim Denny, Sept. 25, 1954 as he fired Elvis Presley after one performance at the Grand Ole Opry. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
"Paul Saccani" wrote in message ... On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 22:14:49 +1000, "RT" wrote: "Paul Saccani" wrote in message . .. Aren't both sources integrated via a fast Kalman filter? GPS errors are rapid and errors tend to clump around an accurate position, whilst INS errors are slow and tend to drift away from an accurate position. Integrating the systems via a Kalman filter results in a far more accurate and precise position. That really is a fascinating idea - sort of poor man's differential GPS..... If you kept track of the average position by the GPS and the difference from there to the inertial position, you'd be able calculate the inertial drift and thence correct the GPS to inertial accuracy :-) Be interested in the technicalities, having been obliged to use a 4th order Chebishev (sp?) filter for some DA years ago - got a URL ? (Too lazy to look atm :-) Chebyshev/Chebychev - ask the missus. She wasn't available at the time or I woulda :-) Doubt if she ever used 'em herself though, as she was more into control theory (...yuk!). These books are worthwhile :- Global Positioning Systems, Inertial Navigation, and Integration, 2nd Edition http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...470041900.html Kalman Filtering: Theory and Practice Using MATLAB, 2nd Edition http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...471392545.html The wiki write up on Fast Kalman seems reasonable too. Many thanks - I'll have a prowl...tho me and Matlab never really got on.... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
Peter Dohm said the following on 7/09/2008 11:55 PM:
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. There's no reason, except cost, why both can't be fitted. Solid state can potentially record most of a flight and, if it survives provide a considerable amount of data over an extended timeline. If the solid state doesn't survive then there's still the legacy FDR and CDR. A damaged hard disk might offer higher rates of recovery than a damaged solid state drive. However, I'm not sure how well a hard disk would tolerate mid air turbulence. Anyway, I think their ability to survive a fire might be a lot less than that of the older devices. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
In article ,
Michael Henry wrote: The other issue you raise really surprises me: the small amount of flight time for which recordings are kept. Some other posts have mentioned half-an-hour loop! Does anyone know what volume of data this entails? I don't know the volume of data, but the CVR and FDR have different amounts of data in terms of time. 1/2 CVRs are old. New ones can record hours. btw - for older aircraft, the biggest cost of putting newer FDRs with (many) more channels is not the FDR itself, but all the sensors that have to be installed. -- Bob Noel (goodness, please trim replies!!!) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Flight Data Recorders
"Paul Saccani" wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:01:32 +1000, "RT" wrote: That really is a fascinating idea - sort of poor man's differential GPS..... Yes, that order of precision and accuracy for navigation. If you kept track of the average position by the GPS and the difference from there to the inertial position, you'd be able calculate the inertial drift and thence correct the GPS to inertial accuracy :-) That's about it. I thought it was used from scratch for aircraft systems with combined INS and GPS - the cost of the filter is a fraction of the cost of the system, particularly if their is already room available on the computing side of things to do it. Its certainly done with the PPS and SPS on military systems. However, on reflection, there are probably many aircraft where GPS has been added to an existing inertial based system and the integration only goes so far as to allow a position update to correct drift. Many thanks - I'll have a prowl...tho me and Matlab never really got on.... Me two... Heh. Mentioned this to Her Indoors. She was mightily unimpressed. "Of course we were updating inertial nav - using radar - now do you want a cup of tea?" Friggin hell! :-) Mind you, her field was ICBMs, not IC domestic transport :-) (For those that tuned in late, my Missus was a fairly senior control systems engineer in the old USSR) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why so expensive (flight recorders) | Jim Beckman | Soaring | 64 | March 4th 08 02:18 PM |
Standalone Flight Recorders for Club Use | ContestID67 | Soaring | 8 | April 24th 07 01:27 AM |
Flight Data recorders on a 757 - What data? | Al Dykes | General Aviation | 0 | January 1st 07 05:09 PM |
Commercial - Mounts for GPS Flight Recorders | Paul Remde | Soaring | 0 | March 13th 04 02:03 PM |
Approved IGC Flight recorders | mat Redsell | Soaring | 2 | March 5th 04 03:35 PM |