Talk:List of unrecovered and unusable flight recorders

9/11 flight recorders
Added the lost boxes from the two jets that crashed into the Word Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. The report is from the 9/11 Commission report, and is contradicted by various conspiracy theorists. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 18th June 2016 I noticed the link to this report (reference 9) is broken but I don't know how to fix it. Can someone else do this, please? It should be https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryPercival (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks MaryPercival, I've now replaced the link. The reader still has to navigate manually to page 465 inside the pdf. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

El Al Flight 1862
As far as I remember the flight recorders of the El Al flight that crashed in Amsterdam were also not recovered or at least one of them. Guess I cannot edit the article because of the new rules, so I'll just post here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.145 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this document (page 23), the flight data recorder was recovered, but the cockpit voice recorder was not. Another document provides a transcript alleged to be from the cockpit voice recorder. Apparently there were multiple questionable issues concerning this flight, including destruction of tapes made during rescue and cleanup. (ref) Wildbear (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New entries

 * I was gonna make a new article called "List of missing aircrafts" until I found this one, which serves the same purpose. There are a number of flights in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_accidents_and_incidents_with_an_unknown_cause which could fit into this list. --Kvasir (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bijmeer Holland crash
One of the black boxes was found. The tape was broken and the last 2:40 minutes where unreadable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.139.180 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing Flight Recorders Only?
There are so many instances of black boxes being damaged beyond being read that this page could never possibly cover all of them. Perhaps it should just exclusively be for missing flight Recorders? 2607:FB90:882C:B220:0:4A:CED7:9401 (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This list currenrtly has 17 entries? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I am in the aviation safety industry and this list is lacking focus. There are multitudes of recorders that are destroyed beyond data yield, this list should only list MISSING recorders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.76.142.9 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have changed the name to List of unrecovered and unusable flight recorders. The person who should not be named (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of unrecovered flight recorders. 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/20140322212243/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR71-08.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR71-08.pdf

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) 00:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Renaming
As this list includes flight recorders that were recovered but at the same time were unusable, it would make more sense if we rename this article “List of unrecovered or unusable flight recorders” Does that sound better? Tigerdude9 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed the name to List of unrecovered and unusable flight recorders. The person who should not be named (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Colloquially, it could go either way (e.g. "the missing and the dead"). However, if you're into correct grammar, it's clearly a list of unrecovered *or* unusable recorders.


 * I agree. The phrase "unrecovered or unusable" is grammatically correct. The phrase "unrecovered and unusable" expresses a logical paradox. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

9/11 World Trade Center Black Boxes???
From what the 9/11 Commission Report said was that none of the black boxes were recovered, but I looked at the link “911truth.org” there is a video in which 2 accounts say that they found 3 of the 4 black boxes at the World Trade Center. How do we know who is lying? The official answer is that the black boxes were not recovered, but the jurisdiction of the FBI says that they were found: “Off the record, we had the boxes, you have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here.” Should we still include those black boxes or should we not? Thanks. The person who should not be named (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would mark it no because the information is not available, or if possible, 'unknown' 0w0 catt0s (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disputed would probably be better The person who should not be named (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just think the people who dispute it are the same type of conspiracy theorist who the public percive as crazy. (i for one am not entirely convinced a black box could survive that sort of thing) 0w0 catt0s (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

edit: in fact, according to this article, none of the (4) recorders from the New York attacks were recovered, only the the ones from Flight 77 (pentagon attack) and Flight 93 (famous heroic passengers crashed in cornfield) 0w0 catt0s (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but what I’m saying is that “[...] how do we know who is lying?” As it is said above, (Personally I believe that those black boxes were found) and every single piece of debris was recovered from the World Trade Center, and it’s very rare for a black box to not be found. What’s also questionable is how were they able to not find the black boxes if they found human remains, watches, banknotes, and buckets of coins? The person who should not be named (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Butting in for a moment, if I might... I'm not sure it's helpful to accuse, or even suspect, anyone of "lying" in this situation. It may be a case of misunderstanding or false/incomplete reporting. There may not even be any explicit "dispute", where one or both parties have accused the other of lying. If there is an apparent contradiction, then we could perhaps at least add the (best) sources which support both claims? In any case, I'm not sure what any evidence, from any analyses of these black boxes, would add to the understanding of what happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

agreed. maybe put 'disputed', add references to both, let those using the article come to their own conclusion. 0w0 catt0s (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already marked them as “disputed” and added a reference. The person who should not be named (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that 9/11truth.org would pass the muster of Wikipedia's acceptable sources. First and foremost the requirement of the source being free from bias. The whole purpose of 9/11truth.org is to sow seeds of distrust specifically of this nature. CE81hc (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I personally believe that something doesn’t add up, 9/11truth.org is saying that there is an argument, this is not all about the WTC black boxes however, it’s about all of them, and people will start thinking about it. For more information, click This link The person who should not be named (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't know if I agree that any of those sources are worthy of a wikipedia citation. They all had the answer that they wanted in mind before they searched for the evidence. If all we are basing this edit on is our personal beliefs, I'd like to point out that it isn't unreasonable to suggest that a plane crash, a fire, and a hundred story building collapse would be enough to destroy a few black boxes. This article itself lists much less destructive crashes that also destroyed their respective boxes. But if I'm wrong, can we at least add a citation to the 9/11 commission report because currently the only citation is 9/11truth.org on the notes column of AA11 and UA175. Thanks CE81hc (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Should we keep them as “Disputed” or should we change it? Thanks. The person who should not be named (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have asked a question about 9/11truth.org at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 911truth.org is a conspiracist crank website. Nothing it says is reliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they got the date right. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , not even that - they use the benighted American month-day system. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Yes, I must have been "making allowances". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So, I'm not sure what else needs to be said here. I've removed the "Disputed" claims and the supporting "sources". Reliable sources still required for the non-recovery. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, maybe we should keep it as “citation needed” or something. Thanks. The person who should not be named (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The official report says none were found? But I guess that's regarded as WP:PRIMARY. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well should we put in the official sources or no? Thanks. The person who should not be named (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is Wikipedia. The official sources are treated as fact and can be cited as such - the 9/11 commission reports etc. are reliable sources and we don't need to attribute statements made therein. Claims by Truthers may be covered as claims, but only when reality-based sources comment on them, and not at all when this would give undue weight to a fringe view, In any situation where there are competing claims from the official accounts and from Truthers, we assume by default that the Truthers are wrong. We do not characterise statements in the official account as "disputed" because Truthers claim otherwise, but only if there are reliable independent mainstream sources that cite genuine experts with competing views. See also WP:RANDY. Pinging who has tremendous experience in this area. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think Guy is saying "yes" to your question. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m asking you to keep an open mind, since the 9/11 Investigation is still ongoing, so there could be an update, maybe what your saying is true, but either way, you could get an update. The person who should not be named (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What?? You're suggesting that someone will suddenly come across a Flight Data Recorder somewhere? Down the back of the sofa? Someone will one day remember that Cockpit Voice Recorder they've stashed out in the garage and think "Oh yeah. I found that in New York, that day there was all that commotion... I'd better hand that thing in."?? Yeah, could happen. You never know..... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m not joking you never know. The person who should not be named (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia includes all significant views covered in reliable independent sources. Wikipedia routinely excludes conspiracist drivel in unreliable sources. That's what is going on here. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TPWSNBN, I take my hat off to you. In fact.... you can keep it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The person who should not be named (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me. I'm suggesting that you are tending towards "fringe and unsupported theories" or, as Guy prefers to call them, "conspiracist drivel in unreliable sources". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)