Re: [SystemSafety] MH370

From: Chris Hills < >
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:07:55 -0000


Memory may be cheap but an EPIRB is self-contained. It needs no external connections or wiring. No point in adding any complexity (weight, power requirements, connectors, wiring and systems in the aircraft etc). With no connections to the aircraft wiring or power supply the reto fitting is far easier, cheaper and the system is more cost effective.  

As it is only going to be needed for locating aircraft that have sunk it only needs to be on a mount at activates at a depth of say 10 metres and a life of 24 or 48 hours. 24 might be a bit short if it is in the middle of nowhere and the weather is bad.  

Once you have found the EPIRB the aircraft will not be far away compared to the current search area and that for AF447. Then you can recover the data from the FDR and CVR.    

From: Matthew Squair [mailto:mattsquair_at_xxxxxx  

Yep, like an EPIRB. But if you're going to do that, well memory is cheap.

Matthew Squair  

MIEAust, CPEng

Mob: +61 488770655

Email; Mattsquair_at_xxxxxx

Web: http://criticaluncertainties.com

On 11 Mar 2014, at 8:13 pm, Chris Hills <safetyyork_at_xxxxxx

Actually you don't need a detachable FDR or CVR. All you need is a detachable simple distress beacon with a life of 48 hours. If you can find that it would narrow the search field to say, a 10 mile radius, rather than thousands of square miles. Then you can find the wreckage and the black boxes far faster.  

A small distress beacon would be smaller in size, mass and complexity, very cheap (comparatively) and easier to mount.  

Regards

   Chris    

From: systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx [mailto:systemsafety-bounces_at_xxxxxx Matthew Squair
Sent: 10 March 2014 23:28
To: Peter Bernard Ladkin
Cc: systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] MH370  

Sure, but over the years there have also been a number of lost at sea accidents where either the FDR or CVR were not recovered or were recovered damaged. Dave Warren's original proposal was aimed squarely at that problem and was for a foam cored blister pack with a simple wire spool recorder and die pack, the concept being that it would be mounted on the external fuselage (around the tail) and popped off in an explosion or impact induced hull over-pressure.  

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Peter Bernard Ladkin <ladkin_at_xxxxxx

> On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:17, Matthew Squair <mattsquair_at_xxxxxx >
> Absolutely, nothing is perfect. But would I prefer an alternate to months
of trawling the abyssal plain with a side scanning sonar? You betcha. Especially if it's a very, very cheap alternative.

In the last twenty years, there are just two cases of lost-at-sea I can think of in which evidence from the hull was *not* required in addition to FDR data to determine cause. There are five cases in which in-air disintegration or burning, which are not identifiable from FDR data, initiated the hull loss, and there is one further case in which physical evidence was required to show there was no anomaly (that it was, in effect, murder/suicide). Two against six isn't a persuasive ratio.

I can go through the records to make this definitive rather than "I can think of", if necessary.

The result of a cost-benefit analysis, even for the past, let alone for conceivable future cases, is not at all evident to me.

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, University of Bielefeld and Causalis Limited  

-- 

Matthew Squair

MIEAust CPEng

 

Mob: +61 488770655

Email: MattSquair_at_xxxxxx

Website: www.criticaluncertainties.com <http://criticaluncertainties.com/> 

 

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx





_______________________________________________ The System Safety Mailing List systemsafety_at_xxxxxx
Received on Tue Mar 11 2014 - 11:08:30 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST