17

Is there a legitimate argument against having a black box on helicopters? I'm assuming there must be reasons beyond financial ones?

Vikki
  • 28,337
  • 16
  • 122
  • 282
Paris60
  • 179
  • 1
  • 5

3 Answers3

35

Airline and commuter type aircraft are required to have cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders. There are no requirements for any other type of aircraft to have them.

Most helicopters are actually small or light aircraft. The helicopter in which Kobe Bryant and others died would be considered a medium sized helicopter, but a small aircraft.

You will find VERY few non-airliner or non-commuter aircraft have any type of “black boxes” as they’re commonly (and erroneously) called. They are not required to, either. Expense, weight, complexity, and maintenance are all reasons. The smaller number of lives at risk might be another. After all, they carry the same number of people as between a sports car and a passenger van. School and passenger buses carry more people.

Saying that, technology has become cheaper and more compact in order to provide de facto recorders. Some modern avionics have that function built in. With the proper app, iPhones and iPads have that function. Some pilots will go the extra step and buy their own sensors to provide more accurate data on Attitude, Heading, Position, Altitude, Ground Speed, Carbon Monoxide presence, and Traffic Data. Add-on apps will even record voice transmissions picked up by the headsets and audio system. This is not mandated by the FAA. It is more for the pilots Situational Awareness and review for training purposes. ForeFlight, CloudAhoy, Stratus, Sentry, and Lightspeed are some common devices and apps used to record data.

Dean F.
  • 16,507
  • 1
  • 30
  • 70
  • 1
    "There are no requirements for any other type of aircraft to have them." That is not true according to the answer Koyovis linked above. – Bianfable Jan 30 '20 at 07:39
  • 9
    You are partially right and I am partially wrong. The link still describes the requirements for airline and commuter type aircraft. If the aircraft is below 12500 pounds, and has less than 10 passenger seat, and not be certified to require more than 1 pilot, it does not require recorders. – Dean F. Jan 30 '20 at 08:01
  • 12
    I'd argue that calling it a black box is not an error. That's just the generic term for it at this point. It's not super accurate, but everyone knows what you mean when you ask about "the black box". – JPhi1618 Jan 30 '20 at 16:46
  • 23
    The black box is orange. A green card is pinkish. You park on a driveway. You drive on a parkway. Military intelligence isn’t. Neither is common sense. Laurel is actually pronounced Yanni. English. Go figure. – Dean F. Jan 30 '20 at 16:56
  • @DeanF. Actually, I park and drive on a driveway and I drive and park on a parkway, so it's partially accurate – pushkin Jan 30 '20 at 18:59
  • @pushkin - George Carlin would be appalled. – Dean F. Jan 30 '20 at 19:05
  • @DeanF. Point of note, my Green Card is green... I assume that is why it is named such. – Lady_A Jan 30 '20 at 21:12
  • 6
    @DeanF. you can run on a walkway, but don't try to walk on a runway. – Mark Ransom Jan 30 '20 at 21:48
  • 2
    @Lady_A - My wife’s green card is pink. She has been here a long time, though. Way before they had expiration dates for permanent resident aliens. She is from Venus. – Dean F. Jan 30 '20 at 21:50
  • 3
    I've no idea who Kobe Bryant is (presumably a topical reference) but how does mentioning him/her add anything to this answer? It's not a name mentioned in the question, so it's hard to see any relevance. It would be simpler and clearer to state that it depends mainly on size and passenger capacity of the aircraft, rather than making readers double-take wondering what context they are missing (particularly in future years when even those who recognise the name now might no longer do so). – Toby Speight Jan 31 '20 at 08:55
  • It's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that portable devices can be installed with flight-recorder software - are they really able to record pilot inputs and control surface positions, for example? Or do you just mean the CVR function in that sentence? – Toby Speight Jan 31 '20 at 08:58
  • Great info, clearly laid out. A pleasure to read and learn. Cheer! – Paris60 Jan 31 '20 at 09:25
  • 1
    On the "weight" point, there was briefly a suggestion in the UK to make transponders mandatory, on the grounds that a plane would already have an engine battery, they already had a radio and various other equipment running off that battery, and the cost of a black box was relatively low compared to the cost of a plane. The sailplane-glider and balloon pilots all pointed out that they didn't have engines nor batteries. And the hang-glider and paraglider pilots pointed out that the weight and cost of a battery and transponder would be substantially more than the aircraft. It didn't happen. :) – Graham Jan 31 '20 at 10:34
  • 3
    @TobySpeight even with the passage of time the crash that killed Bryant will remain one of history's highest-profile helicopter crashes with no living witnesses and no FDR. Unless the timing of the question is an honest coincidence, it would be better for the question to mention this motivation, as either way readers will be interpreting that derivative question "why isn't there an easier way to find out what happened in that crash?" to be implied for at least some time, and it makes sense for the answer to address this. – Will Jan 31 '20 at 10:50
  • 3
    @TobySpeight - The recent flurry/spate of questions about helicopters and black boxes on this site can be traced back to the Kobe Bryant crash. If Messi, Ronaldo (either Brazilian or Portuguese), Federer, Rafa, Madonna, Beyoncé, Ajay, Shaq, Beckham, Tiger, Oprah or any other mononymously known person were to die under similar circumstances, people would lose their minds wondering the what ifs. People, especially those not in aviation, would flock to sites like this to seek answers. You or I might not know who they are. But, millions of people know, love and adore them to the point of worship. – Dean F. Jan 31 '20 at 16:05
  • 1
    @TobySpeight - Although the ability to record pilot inputs to flight controls and their responses may not be possible with the current devices, the parameters that I listed are. With new engine monitoring tech, the recording of engine performance is not too far behind. With that, the inferences made using that data would be better than no data at all. – Dean F. Jan 31 '20 at 16:17
  • 2
    By the way not knowing or being a fan of the people involved in a crash bears little on the notoriety of the incident. Once told of the crash, you may have to Google the celebrity to understand the context. It’s just a few extra keystrokes. For example: J.P. Richardson, Ritchie Valens, Buddy Holly, Hawkshaw Hawkins, Cowboy Copas, Patsy Cline, Randy Rhoads, A aliyah, Otis Redding, John Denver, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Payne Stewart, Brazil's Chapecoense soccer team. Some people’s legacy will live on past the lifetimes of any of us posting on this site. – Dean F. Jan 31 '20 at 17:32
  • @Dean, I've heard of Madonna, but most of your list of supposedly well-known names is a mystery. It's hard to make assumptions about the cultural context of the world's population when you see only a small subset that corresponds to your own particular interests. (And yes, I have been to Wikipedia and discovered that Bryant was a sportsman in the US; it still seems unreasonable to expect your whole audience to know that.) – Toby Speight Feb 03 '20 at 08:34
  • 1
    @Toby, that is my point, exactly. You are making an assumption about the cultural significance of this crash based on whether YOU know the people involved. You are forgetting that the small subset you speak of is 20% of the world’s population. That is not insignificant for this site considering the fact that particular 20% is part of the 51% of the world’s population that has the internet easily accessible. The above names that I chose are not well known in this subset. But, they are very well known in other, equally large if not larger subsets. That makes them also as significant. – Dean F. Feb 03 '20 at 13:36
  • 4
    A quick review of this site will show a marked increase in helicopter, SVFR and black box questions right after the crash. The questions, answers and comments all tend to mention this accident in one way or another. Every US news outlet and sporting event has made mention of Kobe everyday since. Even before the crash, I have seen people wearing his sports jersey in countries as far away as China, the Philippines, South Africa, England, Germany, Italy, and Spain. These facts, plus the fact that StackExchange is located in Kobe’s home country, make the Kobe crash one of particular interest here. – Dean F. Feb 03 '20 at 14:24
4

To elaborate on Dean's points:

  • Weight is important in an aircraft. Small items matter more in a smaller aircraft. Large aircraft can more easily afford the several extra kilograms added by the weight of a recording device, its crash/fire protection, mounting, interconnection with the aircraft's power and other wiring to feed the data it is to record.
  • Cost is important in small aircraft. Not just the recording device itself, but every parameter to be recorded has to come from a sensor or instrument designed to output a signal the recorder can use; it all comes at a price.
  • Certification. Every piece of equipment installed in an aircraft must meet certification requirements so that it doesn't cause a safety issue and ultimately become the reason an aircraft crashes or otherwise harms its occupants. Certification processes take a lot of time and money. For a flight recorder, its value comes from its ability to work reliably and provide recoverable data after a crash. It all adds up to an expensive undertaking.
Anthony X
  • 3,280
  • 1
  • 20
  • 22
  • 1
    Anthony, Much thanks for the thoughtful, insightful response, especially informative is the 2nd para, and the 3rd reminds me of life out west in Canada years ago. A mutual friend owned a small aircraft company and would complain that only when the weight of the paperwork equaled the weight of the aircraft would Transport Canada allow it to fly. All the best and cheer from Paris! – Paris60 Jan 31 '20 at 09:21
-2

Most of the arguments against flight data recorders are moot - because of technology developed in the past decade. The same technology in a "smart-watch" that allows it to be a telephone, a camera, a computer, and more....is what now makes it possible to have a FDR and CVR that weighs about 6 oz.......one that also has computing power sufficient to contain the entire digital terrain database.....and an algorithm that tells the pilot when he flies too close to the ground.....even when that pilot has no idea where the ground is. As for wiring every instrument into a data recorder, the Army in 2008-9 worked with a small avionic company to build a camera that took photos of the cockpit instruments -- it cost only $3900 and weighed less than 1 lb. It's standard equipment on some small helicopters today....and has been used by NTSB in several crashes to determine causes. Such devices are FAA/EASA approved. Most arguments against helicopter FDRs and CVRs are based on unsupported claims of "too heavy, too big, too expensive". Not today, folks, not today! Wake up to 21st century technology!

Richard F Healing
  • 1
  • Technology has nothing to do with it. Even if you could build a $5 FDR, it would cost millions to certify it per model of aircraft, which has to be spread across the tiny number of units sold. You’re also assuming the aircraft has the dozens of sensors required to feed your FDR, which most small aircraft don’t, and adding them could easily double or triple the cost of those aircraft for the same reason. – StephenS Sep 08 '20 at 15:59