Talk:Flight recorder

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)

Is this...really true?

>Ryan, also the inventor of the retractable safety seat belt now required in automobiles, began working on the idea of a flight recorder in 1946, and invented the device in response to a 1948 request from the Civil Aeronautics Board aimed at establishing operating procedures to reduce air mishaps. The requirement was for a means of accumulating flight data. The original device was known as the "General Mills Flight Recorder".

It doesn't appear to be backed up in the history of the seat belt in its corresponding Wikipedia page.

Also,

>Professor James J. "Crash" Ryan

...uhh...that doesn't seem a little ridiculous to anyone else? The source is "historynet" and it just seems a little...outrageous. Fephisto (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Alright, it looks like nobody cares about this page, so I figured the source was unreliable and pulled it out. Fephisto (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The picture, that should show the flight data recorder actually shows a voice recorder (that's what the label says, too). Even the translation is nonsense. I did not find a way to change the description. It seems, the description in wiki commons is wrong. 2A01:C22:35A2:3900:EFB8:35C9:A320:676A (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of pictures in the article, could you be more specific? Maybe quote the entire caption or click the image and find out its filename.

If you are talking about the first image, File:Fdr sidefront.jpg, it comes from the NTSB website archive link where it is in the FDR section. The label translates as:

"AlliedSignal

RECORDER

OF FLIGHT

DO NOT OPEN"

for me. Commander Keane (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Re this revert, how does one know it was "AI generated text"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Should probably tag @Binksternet. Fephisto (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at the large number of recent edits by Taisymui (and reverted by Binksternet). I’m deeply suspicious of the insertions of new paragraphs by Taisymui - insertions at intervals of 1, 2 or 3 minutes on different articles. The technical content of these new paragraphs is conspicuously banal even though it is not incorrect.

At first I thought Taisymui was simply plagiarising published material by copying and pasting, but then I noticed that these insertions don’t cite the same source or the same type of source. Under these circumstances I think Artificial Intelligence is the obvious likely explanation.

Taisymui has displayed a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia’s rules for section headings. All the new headings incorrectly capitalize all words, whereas Wikipedia minimizes the number of capitalized words in section headings. So Taisymui is new to Wikipedia, doesn’t appreciate the basic rules, and yet can generate entire new sections at intervals of 1, 2 or 3 minutes without ever needing to make a second edit to add something omitted in the first attempt, correct typing or fix the grammar. I don’t think so. Dolphin (t) 20:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok. So no obvious giveaway, just a piece of detective work. Thanks for the explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Dolphin51, that pretty much sums it up. Taisymui has been machine-gunning text into Wikipedia at an alarming rate, leading me to think they are using AI tools rather than the less believable explanation of having previously composed the text offline.

Many of the additions by Taisymui are a restatement of the topic itself, and therefore redundant to the lead paragraph. This shows that the person is not considering the article in the slightest before diving in and adding their bit.

Dual Freq delivered a warning to Taisymui against running an unapproved bot, likely because of the bot-like speed of editing. The community has serious concerns about this style of contribution. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

>conspicuously banal even though it is not incorrect

What a great way to describe it. That does describe the edits perfectly.

...even if it does describe the very comment I'm making right now. Fephisto (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Just for info, it seems many people use this. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The word "helicopter" (or "rotary") does not appear in this article. Do all helicopters have a single combined recording device? I think this article should explain. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the relevant civil standard (ICAO Annex 6) does not contain a standard for recorders in rotary-wing aircraft; and large military helicopters carry recording devices in compliance with whatever military requirement is applicable. The article says nothing about military requirements. Dolphin (t) 13:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no mention whatsoever. It looks like a clumsy omission. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Annex 6 has an extensive section on flight recorder requirements for helicopters. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you think anything should be added here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Helicopters aren't my area of expertise, so I don't really have a view. DaveReidUK (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps readers will assume that ICAO Annex 6) applies to all aircraft, whether fixed-wing or rotary. But I now see that the second paragraph in the lead section now looks a bit out of date, in light of the use of combined devices. The statement "The two flight recorders are required by international regulation..." can no longer be valid, surely? Do you have any view on that? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the statement still applies. CVRs and FDRs are required, per Annex 6, to relevant civil aircraft whether fixed- or rotary-wing. I don't see the need for any change in the article. DaveReidUK (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I assume you mean that the requirement is for the functions of CVRs and FDRs, which may be combined into a single unit, i.e. separate units, which perform these functions independently, are not necessarily required. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Annex 6 makes specific provision for combined recorders. DaveReidUK (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, perhaps it's clear enough as it is, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Under "Combined units" would it be useful to add something along the lines of: "Civil certification requires that two units, in separate locations, with independent power supplies, are installed", with a reference to Annex 6? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The RIPS requirement isn't limited to combined recorders. DaveReidUK (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

In that case perhaps a more general statement is required, and perhaps also copied into the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, a new sub-section on RIPS under "Components" would be a more logical place to discuss it. DaveReidUK (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it could also explain where the units are installed on an aircraft like the Boeing Dreamliner. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

As it stands, the sources in the terminology section of the article only provide support for individual cases where the term "black box" was in use and do not specifically establish when the phrase was in widespread use nor that there is a connection between earlier non-flight recorder aviation uses. For example, the reference for the claim: When modern flight recorders were proposed to the British Aeronautical Research Council in 1958, the term "black box" was in colloquial use by experts actually states [o]ne of the officials, a Mr E. Newton of the Accident Investigation Branch, made the earliest recorded description of the device as a 'black box'. If anything, this sounds like the opposite of what the sentence in the article suggests, as "earliest recorded description" of implies the term was not in widespread use. The other sources are simply instances of the use of the term at a single point in time and do not make broader inferences about how the term developed or was used. The cited 1944 "Aerial Eavesdropper" article, does not use the term "black box", for instance. (Furthermore, despite what the article suggest for future usage, note that public awareness of wire recorders during World War II came from recordings of aerial combat, not accident investigation.) Similarly, the 1945 "Radar for Airlines" article is in regards to navigation aids, not flight safety. There is a level of WP:SYNTH going on with the original authors of the section arguing A → B → C → D, when in fact the references only support A → B and C → D, but not B → C.

To be clear, I believe that the claims made in the section are correct, it is just that the sources don't support this. The term very likely began with the philosophical concept of a "black" box as referring to a system in which the internal processes are opaque to the outside viewer. (cf. black project for another aerospace related use of the term "black" in this manner) Although I cannot support this, one possibility is that the phrase arose from pilots, who may have been flying aircraft equipped by engineers with boxes that they were not were not told or did not understand the exact purposes of. Therefore, the boxes would have been "black" to the pilots. Another is that it would have been a useful way of obscuring the true purpose of the devices during World War II when secrecy was paramount. (cf. etymology of the word "tank" or the designation of the FP-45 pistol. Indeed, it seems that British scientists were already keenly aware of the descriptive importance attached to a name, as evidenced by the conjecture about the Wotan radio system.)

A "terminology" section is a necessary a portion of the article, as one of the most common questions asked about flight recorders is "why are they called black boxes". So it can't be eliminated. The problem is that it's hard to find references that support the entire chain of connections from the philosophical concept to the modern crash investigation devices. This is likely for a number of reasons: there are so many levels of abstraction, only one link in the chain is relevant to the subject discussed in the reference (i.e. most papers on flight recorders are focused on technical aspects, not the history), the author is simply not aware of the full sequence of connections, and/or the process by which the modern meaning of the term was constructed was not an intentional choice (as is the case with many technical terms in aviation) and was sufficiently extensive that no individual was involved in the entire process.

Again, fully aware that I myself have done a significant amount of WP:OR in the course of this post and to return to the question at hand, what we need is a source that can tie each piece of the story together. –Noha307 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)