• player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s surprising that the black box overwrites itself after 2 hours of recording. This article linked to an article I missed about how the plane that had the door/panel fall off had the cockpit audio overwritten because it wasn’t collected in time.

    • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The black box isn’t like a modern hard drive, with terabytes of storage. They’re often old, and even the modern ones need to put so much effort into protection against things like fire, seawater and collisions that they don’t have as much space as you might imagine.

      They have to rely on someone going out of their way to take the box out, or shut down the plane, because the alternative would be for them to have some way to decide for themselves to stop recording. If they could do that then a false positive would cause them to miss potentially important data, so they’re designed to keep going until someone makes it stop

      • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        7 months ago

        That sounds like something they need to improve on then. Two hours is a ridiculously short amount of time given the tech we have in 2024.

        • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          I didn’t say anything like that. The black box is physically much bigger than a modern SSD, but stores far less data because of all the extra problems it has to deal with

            • Dyf_Tfh@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Black box were Solid State Drive before SSD were common, the advantages of no moving parts are simply too high.

            • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Being hit by a truck, then catching fire and being allowed to burn while doused in jet fuel for a while before being dunked in seawater for a few days.

              I’ll bet you can’t find an SSD which can do that.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The flight recorder itself doesn’t do that either. Just the case surrounding it. You could just as well put an SSD in it. Hell it would probably be better as older tech was more vulnerable to vibrations.

            • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Of-the-shelf SSDs are optimized for speed and price.

              Flight recorders are typically specified to withstand an impact of 3400 g and temperatures of over 1,000 °C (1,830 °F), exposure to salt water, and high pressure if it sinks to the bottom of the sea as required by EUROCAE ED-112.

              Maybe you could design a flight recorder that uses SSDs, but then you must get it certified again for the new hardware, which will cost a lot of money nobody wants to spend. The next step in flight recorders is to also send a live feed of telemetric data back to some ground station so the last position of the plane is known - with a flight recorder you only get this data after you found the wreck. Currently submitting this signal is optional and can be turned of by the pilot, which is the reason why Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is still missing.

    • anlumo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      There’s a proposal by the FAA (here) to increase the length to 25h for new planes.

      There have been catastrophic events that took longer than 2h by themselves to manifest, so they lost the beginning of the disaster by this stupidly short record duration.

  • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m due to hop on to a 787 later this year. I don’t really know how much of a risk I’m taking. This stuff’s freaking me out. Are they all sus? Or just on certain airlines or what?

    • Synthuir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The 787 airframe is unrelated to the 737 MAX series, which had the MCAS crashes/door falling off.

      That said, I’d never want to fly Boeing, but it’s probably not a realistic worry at this point.

      • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The 787 has had its share of problems too. Boeing really need to get their act together.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah. The max series seems to be the ones with all the problems, especially the max 8 and newer. If it’s not one of those, you should be fine.

    • notapantsday@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      There are a lot of Boeing 787 in the air at any time. You can go to flightradar24.com, click the filter icon at the bottom, add new filter, then aircraft and as ICAO code you just enter B78* and it will show you only this aircraft type.

      The risk for an incident with any 787 at any time in the next few years may be higher that it should be. But the risk for one individual plane on one single flight is absolutely negligible. You’re more in danger on your way to the airport probably.

    • SamsonSeinfelder@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      I can only see three incidents with 787 on wikipedia:

      • 2013 Boeing 787 Dreamliner grounding
      • 2024 TCAS incident over Somalia
      • LATAM Airlines Flight 800

      This does not looks like a repeating pattern. The Flight 800 was a 300ft drop midair with around 30 to 40 people hitting the ceiling of the cabin and landing in Auckland without further problems. This does not sound 787 related. Just keep your seatbelts on.

      The 2024 TCAS incident reads like a near collision based on miscommunication by air traffic control. Not related to the 787 series.

      And well the 2013 787 grounding was based on lithium-ion batteries problems and has now been fixed (?).

      I would say relax and keep your seatbelts buckled (disregarding what airframe you are on).

    • DaMonsterKnees@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      I won’t attempt to assuage your concern with facts, as this is not my area of expertise, but numbers alone are in your favor. Millions to one, at least. “You don’t worry about hitting the lottery,” is what I try to tell myself. Let us know how it turns out. I wish you good fortune!

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m about to do that in 30 minutes.

      No, seriously. Not trying to one up you. It’s for work. Otherwise, I would have picked a different flight because I’m paranoid even though I recognize they still have numerous flights daily without issue.

    • harderian729@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      They’re all sus because it’s a quality control issue across the board.

      You’ll probably be fine, but you could also be a sacrifice so some investor/owner can make more money than you could ever dream of.

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Do you ride in a car? You’re way more likely to get injured in a car than a plane. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but these are incredibly rare occurrences. And luckily the airline regulators are super good about preventing previous issues from every happening again.

      And I’m sure you won’t be able to shut it out of your mind, but it’s not worth worrying about for even a minute.

    • aStonedSanta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      They are all sus. Boeing is untrustworthy and has proven so many times in the last few years. Find a different plane imo.