Timeline for Why aren't the CVR and FDR required to store data for a longer period?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2017 at 20:59 | history | edited | Ben | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
No U in Qantas
|
| Aug 9, 2017 at 19:46 | comment | added | Kxy | I don't think anyone would be surprised if you called the event an 'incident'. The plane was only a few feet from landing on top of two fully fueled airliners waiting on the taxiway. And like I said, the data would remain protected, as I assume it is now, and can only be pulled when a serious incident occurs, like the near miss at SFO. Im sure the NTSB and other regulatory agencies have already set the benchmark for what classifies as an "incident" and whether to pull the recorders data. | |
| Aug 9, 2017 at 19:27 | comment | added | abelenky | "would only be accessible in the event of an incident" is very important, especially in the context of AC759. There was not actually a crash, and the plane landed safely. While everyone would love to know what the pilots were thinking/saying, CVRs cannot be pulled arbitrarily. The NTSB has rules about how pilot recordings can used / must not be used. | |
| Aug 9, 2017 at 19:24 | comment | added | Kxy | Good points, I was just thinking about the recent incident of the near-miss at SFO, supposedly the CVR wasn't turned off and the entire incident was wiped from the recorder, something that would have been avoided if it had the ability to record longer. Also I would imagine that data would be protected under existing data privacy laws and would only be accessible in the event of an incident, with regards to your point about pilot convesation privacy. | |
| Aug 9, 2017 at 19:10 | history | answered | abelenky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |