5 ms·

Battery backup was not required until 2010. This aircraft was manufactured in 2009. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpar

Battery backup was not required until 2010. This aircraft was manufactured in 2009. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpart-K/section-121.359 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G...

jiggawatts 2y ago
The general populace seems convinced that black box recorders are made of adamantium and can return data even if the plane falls into a black hole. Meanwhile every time I read about a crash, I'm horrified by how primitive the requirements (and implementation) appear to be. This reminds me of my favourite method for reviewing software I had never heard of: I check the release notes. If version v17 has "now uses transactions" then that means that the developers were happy to release the first sixteen major versions with data corruption as a feature. (Conversely, if the notes only mention fantastically obscure scenarios being fixed, then the basic issues have been fixed long ago.) Battery backup being introduced in 2010 as a requirement is absolutely insane. It's not like batteries or battery backup are new technologies! This stuff has been around forever. Why on earth was this not a requirement decades ago!?
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I find it just as crazy that many or most personal cars come equipped with cameras and sensors all over, but are not required to record any of it for analysis of a collision and attribution of fault. The most unqualified person can be driving a 10,000 pound (4,500kg) electric Hummer and have no measures in place to use the built in cameras and sensors to determine what went wrong in the event of a collision. Hell, there are cameras inside the vehicle that can tell us whether or not a driver was using their phone when a crash happens, but it does not seem politically popular to enforce reviewing this footage, even though being in a personal car is far more dangerous than being a passenger on a plane.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    This is not strictly true and most cars have black box modules which record control inputs and IMU data.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      I have never heard of this used to determine who is at fault in a collision. Does that happen? Also, video would be a tremendous help for ascribing proper blame, so why wouldn’t that be required? When airbags came out, video recording was expensive, but that has long not been the case.
      - SR2Z 2y ago
        It does happen! These devices are generally only installed post-2005ish cars and the data is used more for safety investigations (did this car have a hardware fault) than insurance, simply because it takes a decent amount of skill to construct a narrative off those devices. Video isn't required because even these black boxes, AFAIK, are STILL not required in the US. They also introduce unacceptable privacy compromises for Americans, seeing as how most people subconsciously treat their car as an extension of their living room.
        lotsofpulp 2y ago
        >Video isn't required because even these black boxes, AFAIK, are STILL not required in the US. They also introduce unacceptable privacy compromises for Americans, seeing as how most people subconsciously treat their car as an extension of their living room. …that is my point. For the most dangerous activity people in the country do, we avoid laws that would help ascribe blame because everyone wants to be able to break the rules. A pilot gets recorded, regardless of their privacy, because they are responsible for other people’s lives. Why not drivers? They certainly cause damage to other people. And at a rate far higher than a person doing ANY other activity. It’s not about privacy, it is about wanting to avoid accountability.
  - GoToRO 2y ago
- nneonneo 2y ago
  Because adding a battery backup means one (or two!) more batteries that have to be tested and certified to fly; more batteries that have to be checked before flight; more points of failure that could ground an aircraft or cause incidents themselves; more weight on board (especially relevant for smaller craft); etc. etc. The battery issue isn’t idle speculation; a recent flight I was scheduled for was cancelled when the airline accidentally allowed a battery to deep discharge, necessitating a new battery to be flown in from another city (delaying the flight so badly it was cancelled instead and passengers delayed to the next day).
  - tomcam 2y ago
    Fascinating. How did you find out?
    - nneonneo 2y ago
      They announced the details at the gate. They even told us they were trying to get a new battery in from Cleveland (we were in Pittsburgh). I didn’t find out which battery was discharged though.
      - tomcam 2y ago
        I hope that’s a trend. My experience has always been that they give zero information about such circumstances.
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  > Battery backup being introduced in 2010 as a requirement is absolutely insane I welcome the formation of your company selling already-certified batteries that will not damage anything around them (like the precious recorded data) if they go from 500 to 0 in no seconds flat, are subjected to pressures of a few kilometers of water, or to a post-crash fire.
  - rixed 2y ago
    The batteries do not have to be located close to the recorded data
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - dmitrygr 2y ago
      Then wires break or get burned. Causing cuts like now.
themaninthedark 2y ago
Did some airplanes have battery backup before that? It's my recollection of several crashes, where the plane is not immediately recoverable that there is always a concern that the black boxes will overwrite themselves.
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  There's a slew of models and different methods for recording. The time period they record tends to be very short, but that does raise an interesting question, when do they stop recording?

jiggawatts 2y ago

The general populace seems convinced that black box recorders are made of adamantium and can return data even if the plane falls into a black hole. Meanwhile every time I read about a crash, I'm horrified by how primitive the requirements (and implementation) appear to be. This reminds me of my favourite method for reviewing software I had never heard of: I check the release notes. If version v17 has "now uses transactions" then that means that the developers were happy to release the first sixteen major versions with data corruption as a feature. (Conversely, if the notes only mention fantastically obscure scenarios being fixed, then the basic issues have been fixed long ago.) Battery backup being introduced in 2010 as a requirement is absolutely insane. It's not like batteries or battery backup are new technologies! This stuff has been around forever. Why on earth was this not a requirement decades ago!?

lotsofpulp 2y ago
I find it just as crazy that many or most personal cars come equipped with cameras and sensors all over, but are not required to record any of it for analysis of a collision and attribution of fault. The most unqualified person can be driving a 10,000 pound (4,500kg) electric Hummer and have no measures in place to use the built in cameras and sensors to determine what went wrong in the event of a collision. Hell, there are cameras inside the vehicle that can tell us whether or not a driver was using their phone when a crash happens, but it does not seem politically popular to enforce reviewing this footage, even though being in a personal car is far more dangerous than being a passenger on a plane.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  This is not strictly true and most cars have black box modules which record control inputs and IMU data.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I have never heard of this used to determine who is at fault in a collision. Does that happen? Also, video would be a tremendous help for ascribing proper blame, so why wouldn’t that be required? When airbags came out, video recording was expensive, but that has long not been the case.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      It does happen! These devices are generally only installed post-2005ish cars and the data is used more for safety investigations (did this car have a hardware fault) than insurance, simply because it takes a decent amount of skill to construct a narrative off those devices. Video isn't required because even these black boxes, AFAIK, are STILL not required in the US. They also introduce unacceptable privacy compromises for Americans, seeing as how most people subconsciously treat their car as an extension of their living room.
      - lotsofpulp 2y ago
        >Video isn't required because even these black boxes, AFAIK, are STILL not required in the US. They also introduce unacceptable privacy compromises for Americans, seeing as how most people subconsciously treat their car as an extension of their living room. …that is my point. For the most dangerous activity people in the country do, we avoid laws that would help ascribe blame because everyone wants to be able to break the rules. A pilot gets recorded, regardless of their privacy, because they are responsible for other people’s lives. Why not drivers? They certainly cause damage to other people. And at a rate far higher than a person doing ANY other activity. It’s not about privacy, it is about wanting to avoid accountability.
- GoToRO 2y ago
nneonneo 2y ago
Because adding a battery backup means one (or two!) more batteries that have to be tested and certified to fly; more batteries that have to be checked before flight; more points of failure that could ground an aircraft or cause incidents themselves; more weight on board (especially relevant for smaller craft); etc. etc. The battery issue isn’t idle speculation; a recent flight I was scheduled for was cancelled when the airline accidentally allowed a battery to deep discharge, necessitating a new battery to be flown in from another city (delaying the flight so badly it was cancelled instead and passengers delayed to the next day).
- tomcam 2y ago
  Fascinating. How did you find out?
  - nneonneo 2y ago
    They announced the details at the gate. They even told us they were trying to get a new battery in from Cleveland (we were in Pittsburgh). I didn’t find out which battery was discharged though.
    - tomcam 2y ago
      I hope that’s a trend. My experience has always been that they give zero information about such circumstances.
dmitrygr 2y ago
> Battery backup being introduced in 2010 as a requirement is absolutely insane I welcome the formation of your company selling already-certified batteries that will not damage anything around them (like the precious recorded data) if they go from 500 to 0 in no seconds flat, are subjected to pressures of a few kilometers of water, or to a post-crash fire.
- rixed 2y ago
  The batteries do not have to be located close to the recorded data
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    Then wires break or get burned. Causing cuts like now.

themaninthedark 2y ago

Did some airplanes have battery backup before that? It's my recollection of several crashes, where the plane is not immediately recoverable that there is always a concern that the black boxes will overwrite themselves.

Over2Chars 2y ago
There's a slew of models and different methods for recording. The time period they record tends to be very short, but that does raise an interesting question, when do they stop recording?