Talk:Flight recorder

merge
Oppose

This article is about all types of flight recorders, the other Flight data recorder is about one type. Merging is impossible. Meggar (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The length of Flight data recorder is too long to be merged with this article. Flight recorder discusses flight recorders in general, while the Flight data recorder article exclusively provides information on the flight data recorder. The articles should not be merged in my opinion. --Jesant13 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsure

This article is also somewhat inaccurate, as there is also flight recording via tracking of data from the transponder outputs/radar. I would suggest that Flight data recorder be the main source - and has anyone checked out black box? Ianguy 11:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no use of the term flight recording except as it refers to the product of a flight recorder. Data from radar records, ground voice tapes, and so on are assembled after an incident; there is no recording of a particular flight other than that made by a flight recorder. If the article was still unclear before, it should be clear now with the addition of a photo of a cockpit voice recorder, that flight recorders include both CVR and FDR. One can not be merged without the other. If someone wants to they can put up a merge tag suggesting combining them all into one big article. For now I am removing the old tag. Meggar 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I would ust like to point out a mutual incompatibility in the discussion about the origin of the term black box: In this article, in the "History" section, it says that the term might have developed because the inside of the first recorder was "pitch black". But in article Black box (transportation), section "Origin" has two different theories about the origin - a comment made when the "Red Egg" was first shown, or else World War III RAF Terminology. We should try to be consistent... 158.61.0.254 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support There is both Flight data recorder and Black Box out there, which (at least in Australian english,) refer to the same thing. Thoglette 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging to Black box
Flight recorders are a subset of black boxes. The articles are short, overlap considerably, and link to each other for further information. Prime candidates for merging. I'm being bold and doing this. Chris Cunningham 12:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with this. While 'flight recorders' are indeed a subset of black boxes, so are 'event data recorders' (cars), 'event recorders' (trains), and 'voyage data recorders' (ships).  All of these data recording devices are generally known as black boxes--'flight recorders' just happen to be the most well known of these (though there has been quite a bit of talk in recent years about automotive 'black boxes').  It makes no sense to turn the 'black box (transportation)' article into what is essentially the 'flight recorder' article, without going into equal detail on the other types of black boxes.  If the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder are both types of 'flight recorders', I do not understand why 'flight recorder' should not be a seperate article and have the other two "sub-types" merged into it.


 * I should also note that, personally, I am also opposed to the existence of the 'black box (transportation)' article, as I feel that links to the different recorders (plane, car, train, ship) should go on the 'black box (disambiguation)' page. There is no point in trying to maximize 'link depth' in wikipedia!  -Grammaticus Repairo 23:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Data recovery devices form a particular subset of black boxes in general. It makes sense to have one page which gives a general overview of such devices. I personally think that the shortness of the individual articles at the moment means they should all be merged into black box (transportation). But one step at a time. Chris Cunningham 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While it does make sense in theory to have a general overview page, the 'black box (transportation)' article, as it stands right now, hardly qualifies as such. The introductory/summary sentence is appropriate, but the second sentence is largely irrelevant (even containing the phrase "this has no special connection with recording devices").  The next two sentences are relevant, though fairly trivial, and the last sentence is just humor.  These five sentences DO NOT comprise a 'general overview' of transportation-related black boxes.
 * In regard to merging all of the vehicle-specific device articles into this one, while it doesn't seem like a bad idea per se, it would seem very inappropriate for AIRCRAFT black boxes (by whatever name(s) called) NOT to have a dedicated article, given their high profile and the importance the public places on them when an airliner crash is being investigated. If all the vehicle-specific devices get merged into this page, then perhaps the aircraft device (whatever it ends up being called) could be listed first (and consist only of a link to the appropriate stand-alone article)?  The information about devices for other vehicles (autos, locomotives, ships, etc.) could then be listed below the aircraft devices, each with its own heading.
 * And finally, it seems only appropriate to me that, if 'flight data recorders' and 'cockpit voice recorders' and 'quick access recorders' are indeed all subsets of 'flight recorders', then those articles all should all be merged into one single article about aircraft black boxes under the title 'Flight recorder'. The names of all of the sub-types of flight recorders (FDRs, CVRs, QARs, etc.) could all redirect to 'Flight recorder'.  As they stand right now, there seems to be a lot of similar/related (and duplicated) information spread out over several articles.  If anyone thinks this does not make sense, I'd like to know their reasoning...  -Grammaticus Repairo 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be quite honest I don't really mind exactly what gets merged into what, but the current situation of a half-dozen very short articles which incestuously link to each other and constantly reiterate the same concepts has to change. Chris Cunningham 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are three articles here dealing with aviation recorders. Just three. There is one on Flight-Recorder about common features and mentioning some sub-types, and one each on CVR and FDR, the two kinds of protected recorders. They are separate but interlinked and somewhat overlapping, that would be because they mirror the situation in practice. Of course there is a different article on Event-Recorder for railroads; different article because it is a different thing. I don’t see where your impression of a confusing array of many articles could have come from. Please explain. Meggar 03:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See the series of past merge requests. I'm not seeing any justification there for keeping them as separate, very short, articles rather than merging into a single comprehensive one which doesn't force people to click links and read the same thing over and over again to get the same amount of information. The concepts overlap sufficiently that there's good justification for a merge. Chris Cunningham 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So you still perceive an excessive number of small articles and can not see a justification for keeping them seperate. I still count three. Could it be rephrased that you can not differentiate between a lot of devices that are unlike? You are just joking of course to suggest that everyting that you imagine to be the same must be lumped together. There is nothing wrong with a little kidding, but evertually one needs references here. You must have a dooser of a reference up your sleave to counter all the definitions in all the doucuments published by all the agencies who define these things. Meggar 05:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are six articles linked from black box (transportation). These devices are not so unlike that they need separate articles. From a stylistic point of view it is far better not to inconvenience both readers and editors by splitting articles into microscopic parts for the sake of some perceived purity of definition. Once again, please actually provide this justification instead of simply referring to it. Chris Cunningham 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Extensixe redirecting and merging without discussion
Those are some stong opinions, but they are not a discussion. Many people have contribted their thoughts and work to these pages, some with knowlege of rail and air use of recorders, some lay people. They are all important. The opinions of lay people without actual contact with the subject are very important in helping to adjust articles to get across some difficult ideas. I am reseting this, and hope to talk with you as we research this topic further. Meggar 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of WP:OWN. So far I haven't seen a single actual justification for the revert, and there has been considerable discussion of potential merges. I don't really care enough about the subject to get into a revert war about it, but if no actual commentary opposing a merge appears soon I'm going to re-merge the pages. Chris Cunningham 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Followed through on this. Chris Cunningham 11:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The aeronautical engineers who invented and patented the original aviation recorders refer to them by their patented name. The FLIGHT RECORDER invented and patented by Professor James J. Ryan is US Patent 2,959,459. The CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE also invented and patented by Professor James J. "Crash" Ryan at the University of Minnesota in 1959 is US Patent 3,075,192. Professor Ryan invented the Flight Recorder in response to the 1948 request from the Civil Aeronautics Board for development of a flight recorder as a means of accumulating data that could be used to get information useful in arriving at operating procedures designed to reduce air mishaps. The original device was known as the "General Mills flight recorder". Professor Ryan is also the inventor of the retractable seat belt now required in automobiles. [User:BBoniface|BBoniface]] (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)BBoniface on January 7, 2014

Cockpit image recorder recommendation section
I set off the 2 last paragraphs into a separate section called "Cockpit image recorder recommendation" - if anyone knows, it would be useful to include in that section the reason why the airlines have pushed back. The $8000 figure is misleading because everything is about extra weight on the aircraft adding to the ongoing fuel consumption, so if the image recorder is 150kg of weight then that needs to be mentioned as a reason going against adoption. Tempshill (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

proposal on an improvement in the work of the aircraft
In connection with the fall of aircraft, can be urgent the following proposal (new device for "black box" of aircraft) "catapult module of the memory "of the black box" of aircraft" The usual "black box" of aircraft am established stationarily, and with the emergency, the fall of aircraft it falls into the severe conditions: fire, sinks to the large depths and, etc It is proposed to supplement "black box" of aircraft - by catapult modules of memory, which with the emergencies fire back from the aircraft and descend to the earth on parachute. Similar modules of memory would possess the following characteristics: •The copy of information, which writes "black box" of aircraft, is written, •Autonomously are determined the moment of emergency, the moment of ejection, •It descends to the earth beside the aircraft on parachute, thus it does not fall into the severe conditions of emergency, and they do not require protection and isolation from the external severe conditions of emergency, •It does not sink in the water, •It has signal of radio system - for the rapid detection.

The contemporary digital modules of the energy-independent memory possess the great capacity (ten, hundreds of gigas-byte), the small sizes (several centimeters), the light weight (tens of grams), the small price (tens of dollars). It is sufficiently easy to introduce the respectively similar modules of memory in the contemporary aircraft. Therefore with any emergency there will be the additional guarantee of the fact that the parameters of emergency will be discovered, and that similar emergencies will not be repeated in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userdelphi (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Flight recorder?
Does anyone actually use the term "flight recorder"? Everyone I know that has to deal with both flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders calls them by those names, and I *never* hear the term "flight recorder". If I did, I'd just assume they forgot to say "data". So I ask: is there really a need for an article for this term? Wouldn't two separate cross-linked "See also" articles suffice? If there is a context where this terminology is common, I'd like to know what it is, as that context would drive the content of this article. 70.247.169.206 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a rename to "crash-survivable flight recorder" might be appropriate, spinning off QAR as a separate article? 70.247.169.206 (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The aeronautical engineers who invented and patented the original aviation recorders refer to them by their patented name. The CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE was invented and patented by Professor James J. "Crash" Ryan at the University of Minnesota in 1959. The U.S. Patent 3,075,192 is for a CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE and can be viewed online at the U.S. Patent Office website. Professor Ryan invented the CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE in response to the 1948 request from the Civil Aeronautics Board for development of a flight recorder as a means of accumulating data that could be used to get information useful in arriving at operating procedures designed to reduce air mishaps. The original device was known as the "General Mills flight recorder". Professor Ryan is also the inventor of the retractable seat belt now required in automobiles. See U.S. Patent 3,075,192. BBoniface (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2014

Plea to create a hierarchy with an INTRO article on TOP
Please create a single, high-level article on "Black Boxes in Planes, Trains, Ships and Cars" where you can define the scope as vehicle trip/flight/voyage voice and parameter recorders in airplanes, trains, ships, cars and other vehicles, and refer to all the specialized articles from there.

AS A USER coming here for the first time in Aug2010, I am wasting my time bouncing among
 * Black_box_(transportation)
 * Flight_data_recorder
 * Flight_recorder

AS AN EDITOR, I face unnecessary barriers to contributing to the evolution of the site. (1) Where do I add material? (2) Where must I look to fix material that might contradict what was added and leave readers in a muddle?

Here is text that can help evolve the article. But before edits can be done, one must know where they should go. I am only a newcomer. Please decide among yourselves on a hierarchical article structure that can provide a clean foundation upon which the larger Wikipedia community can drive the continuing evolution of these articles. Vehicle voice/data/location recording will grow in importance as cars add them, insurance companies use them to fight claims, and the Executive Branch claims the right to take them.

The Last Word in Wikipedia Land is "change". So here is more information on this topic, it is not the last word, and we need a better basis for supporting change.

Suggested text, where does it go?
Note: references (in parentheses) are at end.

Black boxes are not black for the sake suppressing reflections during photographic recording on film, as sometimes suggested (http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/beyond-the-black-box). The first modern prototype (1957, David Warren, see below) included a cockpit voice recorder and used wire recording, a commercial predecessor to tape recorders. (NYT) Black boxes are Day-Glo orange now, and use memory chip (since about 1989)(HFRbyL3). The origin of the "black box" term is obscure and may just be lab slang for a neat gadget with unknown innards. Warren painted his prototype red. (NYT)

As mentioned, the original black box was designed by David Warren of Australia (1925 - 2010), who had lost his father to an airplane crash when he was still a boy (1934). He became an aeronautical engineering researcher in the Australian Defense Department, which often lent him out to other agencies. In 1953 Warren worked out an on-board flight recorder after being called upon to investigate one of the notorious [|BOAC Comet crashes] (TheAustralian), which diminished Britain's role in jetliner fuselage construction.

Warren produced a paper on his invention in 1954 (NYT), and the first prototype in 1956 (The Australian). Australians scoffed at his invention, but it and Warren were flown to London, and the British started producing them for their planes in 1958. (NYT)  Fairchild Aviation began American flight recorder production in 1959. (HFRbyL3)

Early American flight data recorders used a five-channel polygraph, but instead of pens on paper, the analog data lines were inscribed by a stylus on Inconel stainless steel foil. The original five parameters -- heading, altitude, air speed, vertical accelerations, and time tics -- were soon increased to eight by simultaneously inscribing both sides of the foil. The new parameters were pitch, roll, and flaps. (HFRbyL3)

Cockpit voice recordings went from wire recording to more perishable but capacious magnetic tape around 1965, and flight data was multiplexed and tracked onto the same tape. By the late 1960s, 64 12-bit channels sampled at 1 Hz were being recorded for the entire duration of round-trip trans-Pacific flights. (HFRbyL3)

Fairchild's flight recorder business passed to Schlumberger, Loral, Lockheed Martin and L3. The majority of today's black boxes are made by L3 Aviation Recorders, Sarasota, FL. Models commonly seen in 2010 have 256 sensor records logged 128 times a second, plus 30 minutes of voice, recently increased to 180 min. (HFRbyL3)

Re-merging
Four years ago a proposal was put forward for sorting out the mess that if the various articles on this subject. At the time this was held up by an editor who has now apparently left. I'm going to get to reimplementing the proposal made in 2007 in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merge. The current situation is a mess for all the reasons so clearly described already. treesmill (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto. There's much text in common and it makes no sense to duplicate it. Flambe (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wasnt this an Australian invention?
I've always thought that it was, look here http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/inventions.htm and i guess more extensive google searches would confirm this :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.163.246 (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a U.S. invention and PATENT as used on U.S. aircraft. The CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE was invented and patented by Professor James J. "Crash" Ryan at the University of Minnesota in 1959. The U.S. Patent 3,075,192 is for a CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE and can be viewed online at the U.S. Patent Office website. Professor Ryan invented the CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE in response to the 1948 request from the Civil Aeronautics Board for development of a flight recorder as a means of accumulating data that could be used to get information useful in arriving at operating procedures designed to reduce air mishaps. The original device was known as the "General Mills flight recorder". Professor Ryan is also the inventor of the retractable seat belt now required in automobiles. The U.S. Patent 3,075,192 for the CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE and approved January 22, 1963 can be viewed at the U.S. Patent Office website. BBoniface (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)BBoniface on January 7, 2014


 * My impression as an entire outsider is, it's like the invention of photography, automobile, machine gun, computer. That is, an idea was in the air but initial crude versions were limited and only modestly useful. Various bright and industrious inventors made various improvements and gradually the thing became practical and widespread. Historians who want to compose a ripping tale can concentrate on the efforts of one genius, but that story ignores most of the history of how the thing arose. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

See U.S. Patent 3,075,192 by Professor James Ryan for development of the "Coding Apparatus for Flight Recorders and the Like" in 1959
The CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE was invented and patented by James J. Ryan, Professor, Mechanical Engineering at the University of Minnesota in 1959. The CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE or Flight Data Recorder (FDR) is one of two or more aviation recorders inside the so called "black box". U.S. Patent Number 3,075,192 for the CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE patented by James J. "Crash" Ryan is dated January 22, 1963. Professor Ryan who also patented the retractable seat belt for automobiles.

Professor Ryan was responding to the Civil Aeronautics Board suggestion in 1948 for a "flight recorder" to accumulate data that would be useful in arriving at operating procedures to reduce air mishaps. The U.S. Patent 3,075,192 for the CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE can be viewed at BBoniface (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2014

Correct naming for AVIATION RECORDERS in the U.S. and correct identification of U.S. Patents by Ryan, Albrecht, and Boniface
The inventions and patents by Professor James J. "Crash" Ryan, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Minnesota from 1931 to 1963 together with the inventions and patents by Edmund A. Boniface, Jr., an aeronautical engineer with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation from 1950 to 1978 are the U.S. patented devices that were developed in the 1950s and 1960s.

These 2 inventors referred to their devices by the correct patent name. James J. Ryan's U.S. Patent Number 3,075,192 for a CODING APPARATUS FOR FLIGHT RECORDERS AND THE LIKE was filed on December 21, 1959 and approved January 22, 1963. Ryan's device was for "use on aircraft for the purposes of recording data relating to altitude, air speed, vertical acceleration, direction of flight, time, and the like". The link to Ryan's U.S. Patent is attached and makes clear the invention was for an "aviation recorder to collect and record DATA".

Edmund A. Boniface, Jr. U.S. Patent Number 3,327,067 for a COCKPIT SOUND RECORDER was filed on February 4, 1963 and approved June 20, 1967 and he consistently referred to it in his conversations with me as an "aviation recorder for the purpose of recording SOUNDS including the VOICE of the pilot". The original filing for the COCKPIT SOUND RECORDER was on February 2, 1961 and at that time patent was named AIRCRAFT COCKPIT SOUND RECORDER; that patent attempt was abandoned due to views by some that it was "an invasion of privacy". The device provided a progressive erasing/recording loop (lasting 30 minutes or more) of all SOUNDS and VOICE and NOISE which could be overheard in the cockpit during a catastrophic aviation event. As someone on this editing talk page mentions the manufacturing of the devices in the United States began with Fairchild and passed to Schlumberger, Loral, Lockheed Martin, and L3. In the past decade it has been L3 Communications AVIATION RECORDERS division. The two (or more) AVIATION RECORDERS in the so called "Black Box" are for "recording data and for recording sounds and voices". The link to Boniface's U.S. Patent is attached and makes clear the invention was for an "aviation recorder to collect and record SOUNDS".

In addition, Boniface referenced an earlier U.S. Patent in his COCKPIT SOUND RECORDER patent. That reference was to Fritz Albrecht's U.S. Patent 2,992,296 for a CRASH DATA RECORDER for use on aircraft. The link to Albrecht's U.S. Patent dated July 1961 is attached.

The above patents are part of the various iterations of the development of AVIATION RECORDERS in the United States and as those devices were manufactured in the United States. I am writing a book on this development as it took place in the United States. BBoniface (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)BBoniface on January 8, 2014


 * The question here is why there is a popular perception of the device(s) being invented elsewhere. It's somewhat questionable to state that the existence of a patent somewhere implies the "true" inventor. What looks likely here is that there were independent inventions. We need reliable secondary sources establishing the veracity of your claim and not just the patents. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just remember: the Americans invented everything. At least that's what the Americans like to believe. The reality is very different.  They invented hardly anything.  Even Edison was the world's most prolific invention thief. 31.48.73.38 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * An October 1962 Flight advertisement for "Midas Flight Data Recorders" for the VC10 here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.161 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Drying
The recorders are not air-tight because otherwise they would explode. Because of this they are also not watertight. So when they are recovered from the sea, they need to be thoroughly dried out before the data can be downloaded. This drying process can take a variable amount of time. I think this detail should be added to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It can only be added if you can provide reliable references in support. Somehow, I doubt that you are going to be able because it is not true.  Why would an air-tight flight recorder explode?  31.48.73.38 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of pressure differential. Not only are they dried out, but they are first immersed in fresh clean water to delay the onset of corrosion: . Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BBC Radio 4 this week, during a piece on the latest MH crash. They wouldn't explode though, they'd implode. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another source, although only a blog. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misinterpreted the information. The recording internal working parts on Flight Data Recorders (and Cockpit Data Recorders) start out as air-tight and water-tight units and are intended to remain so under most conditions.  In the picture at the top of the article, the part I am referring to is the cylindrical part which is designed to withstand considerable overpressure (that's why it is very thick).  However, in any crash situation, it obviously is not guaranteed to remain intact.  If the structural integrity is compromised by impact damage and sea water ingresses, then it becomes necessary to wash out the sea water and dry the interior.  Should the unit sink to such a depth that the external pressure exceeds the design limits, then a special weak point allows water to enter and equalise the pressure.  Again this requires washing and drying.  This latter feature is because there is a greater chance of recovering data from a corroded unit than a totally crushed one.


 * The most modern of recorders do not even require washing or even drying out because the memory units (dual redundant FLASH memory) are designed to be removed from their circuit boards and examined separately.


 * Blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources of information on Wikipedia (WP:ELNO) and the media are seldom reliable sources on anything. 31.48.73.38 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bring on your WP:RS sources, by all means. And any information about "most modern of recorders" (unlike the ones from MH17?) would be very welcome. Hard to believe that guy on BBC Radio 4's PM this week was making it all up. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This Article is wrong ... It was Australian David Warren who invented the Flight Recorder. ( Ask the Smithsonian )
Can somebody please correct the miss-information & or lies' on the main page. & correct the record to reflect the truth .... the truth that the inverter of the black box / cockpit voice recorder / data voice recorder / flight recorder' is Australian inverter David Warren.

(CNN) -- David Warren, the man who invented the airline flight data recorder commonly, though now incorrectly, known as the "black box," has died in his native Australia, the defense department said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/07/21/flight.recorder.inventor/index.html

Claiming that James J. "Crash" Ryan invented the flight recorder is just another example of american lies, propaganda & thievery.

The USA has a third world patent system when anybody can claim another persons works,creations & inventions. ... Kinda like the Chinese patent system is now doing to the Americans ... China just patents other peoples inventions & claims them as their own. (( just like the USA has done for 2 centries now )

David Warren invented the Flight data recorder ... not some 3erd world yank.

Couldsomebody also add the following news reports / articles to the source collection / main page.

Cheers.

 & & & & & & & [Http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072106185.html] & & — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.176.208 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Like the last thread posted here by an anon ip (but which geolated to Brisbane instead of Helsinki), as well as falling very close to WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM, your comments seem to include personal insults and so may well be promptly removed. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by a "3erd world yank"? "Cheers". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think what the person above is refering to is the propensity of many Americans to assume that a US Patent is the begining & end of the story. Patents however are issued by individual countries patent offices or departments, often without reference to others or even if the person(s) applying for the patent actually did the work claimed. It can happen that a patent can be issued in two different countries to two diferent people for the exact same thing at much the same time (many people around the world are working on similar projects so its not unusual for some to come up with similar solutions). It also happens that patents that are allowed in one country can be disallowed in another, even if applied for by the same person for the exact same thing, as one juristiction may consider the 'invention' as unpatentable. Perhaps it was common knowledge in that country for years (just because its new to you does not mean its new to everyone else) or its too miniscule a variation or generally considered unimportant or too vauge. Not everyone who could apply for a patent does so (they cost money or everyone will know how you did it or the inventor does not realise its potential value).

The USA is generally considered to have the worlds most lax patent regime (some of them are plain laughable & don't & can't work) & often allows patents that would be thrown out elsewhere. eg many countries disallow things like software patents & patents for things like which way you flick your finger on a smartphone to do something (see Apple & Samsung lawsuit) or patents on things which are realy just ideas but with nothing behind it. They have handed out so many patents without proper checks that lawyers can make a living just battling other conflicting patent holders. Hence the 3rd world patent system reference. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks, anon Aussie IP. Glad I waited the two and a bit years. So do you have any issue with the content of the article? Meanwhile, you might enjoy reading this thesis. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing copied section
I'm removing the first paragraph of the section about David Warren's invention. It closely paraphrases the discussion in, a book published before the paragraph was added to this article. In addition, the source was not cited as a reference. In its place I am putting back the material removed when this was added. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Inventors and inventions
There seems to be some confusion in newspaper articles about the inventions that led to the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Some sources used in this article seem to treat them as the same thing. David Warren of Australia was the first to demonstrate a recorder that included voice as well as flight data. The recorder was built in 1957 and demonstrated in 1958. The first commercially successful data recorder was the Ryan VGA flight recorder developed by James J. Ryan and produced by General Mills of Cheerio's fame. It was flying by 1954 but did not record voices. Lockheed later took over its manufacture. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Flight recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140124051649/http://kenblackbox.com/other/The_ARL_Black_Box_Flight_Recorder.pdf to http://kenblackbox.com/other/The_ARL_Black_Box_Flight_Recorder.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121108143606/http://www.sagemavionics.com/ProdFiles/Brochures/FlightDataManagement/SSFDR.pdf to http://www.sagemavionics.com/ProdFiles/Brochures/FlightDataManagement/SSFDR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070811035216/http://www.vzlu.cz:80/aplikace/eurocae1.htm to http://www.vzlu.cz/aplikace/eurocae1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100522041848/http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au:80/page/3383/ to http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/page/3383/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140804075150/http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl-7.html to http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl-7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Downloading while submerged.
Once the "pings" are detected would it be possible to download the data without having physical access to the "box"?120.144.137.86 (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)charles794@gmail.com


 * No. Since flight data recorders are typically not watertight, I don't think they can operate at all when submerged, let alone transmit data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirplentifus (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319035000/http://www1.umn.edu/news/features/2005/UR_75433_REGION1.html to http://www.umn.edu/news/features/2005/UR_75433_REGION1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flight recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://siiri.tampere.fi/displayObject.do?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.profium.com%2Farchive%2FArchivedObject-8077CE76-2B43-6FAA-D11C-77AAFD6C72E8
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002141527/http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/innovations/discoveries/fallen_aircraft.html to http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/education/innovations/discoveries/fallen_aircraft.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Caption
Video clip of 1985 ABC news report interviewing David Warren about his invention
 * Are you sure it wasn't 1958, the year when it was in the news? In 1985, Warren would have been sixty, and he doesn't look old enough. I realise they didn't have colour TV in 1958, but this picture may have been colourised. Valetude (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Um, he looks about 60? The narrator says "... which he and his friends developed in the 1950s and '60s"? The source, ABC's 80 Days that Changed our Lives, is fully detailed at File:ABC Black Box.ogv. There is no doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Buoy
Why don't planes have some type of buoy that can be deployed in the event on a water accident? 24.51.192.49 (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Read deployable flight recorders. Dolphin ( t ) 13:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

recording time
Airlines in the United States are only required to record 2 hours of recording time. Whilst the European requirement is 25 hours. This has caused issues with lost data on several incident investigations in the US.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ubut-pkxSM

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/faa-requiring-airplane-black-boxes-record-25-hours/story?id=97919562 203.220.56.78 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Both sources look fine to me. I think something should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this interpretation is incorrect or misleading. The article makes it clear that “a minimum of two hours” refers to the cockpit voice recorder; whereas “17 - 25 hours” refers to the flight data recorder. The specified requirements for the CVR and FDR are very different. It has nothing to do with USA versus Europe. Dolphin ( t ) 07:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I have read the detail - I see the reason for distinguishing between the US and Europe where 25 hour recording time is concerned. Dolphin ( t ) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not just the investigation of Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 that's relevant. As the video shows, since 2018, 10 separate NTSB investigations have been compromised in a similar way. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)