The cockpit voice recorder data on the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 jet which lost a panel mid-flight on Friday was overwritten, U.S. authorities said, renewing attention on an industry call for longer in-flight recordings.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chair Jennifer Homendy said on Sunday no data was available on the cockpit voice recorder because it was not retrieved within two hours - when recording restarts, erasing previous data.

The U.S. requires cockpit voice recorders to log two hours of data versus 25 hours in Europe for planes made after 2021.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has since 2016 called for 25-hour recording on planes manufactured from 2021.

“There was a lot going on, on the flight deck and on the plane. It’s a very chaotic event. The circuit breaker for the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) was not pulled. The maintenance team went out to get it, but it was right at about the two-hour mark,” Homendy said.

The NTSB has been vocal in calling for the U.S. to extend its rule to 25 hours. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a month ago said it was proposing to extend to 25 hours – but only for new aircraft.

  • lowleveldata@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why the fuck would they have only hours of recording? Even my cheap voice recorder can go for hundreds of hours

    • Railing5132@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      To be fair, your voice recorder probably can’t withstand being slammed into the ground at 500mph…:P

    • themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      To be entirely fair your cheap voice recorder is not expected to also survive a plane crash. That being said European planes have more without issue so yeah.

      • kn33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        2-3 large NVMe drives, mirrored to each other and properly encased, would provide years worth of recordings and survive a crash. They save so little because they want to.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      This isn’t entirely an excuse, but a CVR has some pretty serious durability requirements. They’re required to withstand physical forces, sustained exposure to direct flame, lengthy submersion in sea water…it’s not a trivial device.

      • Atom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        On top of all that, you have to factor in the development and testing costs for the CVR or FDR too. These are usually off the shelf, previously developed components. A seemingly trivial change like bigger storage suddenly costs several hundred thousand dollars to retest and time to recertify by dozens with agencies around the world. If the regulations have not changed, then there is no reason for to go through that whole R&D process again when the same bought and paid for system works.

        • noughtnaut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          …which you’d think has all already been done, since Europe pretty much uses the same airplanes as the US, so compatible equipment ought to exist.

          • rooster_butt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            You have to recertify the component on each aircraft you install it on. If the manufacturer doesn’t have a reason to update a component they won’t recertify it.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Probably when these regulations were put in place in the 1960s or whenever, there were technical limitations on these recording devices.

    • pc486@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Flight recorders have a very long history with modern ones being engineered in the 1960s. They used film and magnetic tape loops, having very limited capacity. That’s where we get 2 hours from. Early ones only ran for 30 minutes, so 2 hours is pretty good in comparison.

      It’s time to upgrade the regulations to match our current technology instead of 1990s limitations.

      • Dettweiler@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Modern ones are solid state and the owner can choose how long they want to record for. Most ETOPS aircraft will record for much longer than 2 hours. I believe my airline records for 25 hours, even though our aircraft are not based in Europe.

        • pc486@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Absolutely. My comment is about why a regulation would be 2 hours when today we can get more capable, air rated parts. US regulation is lagging behind, but it was based on what was within reach 20+ years ago. Heck, I bet most craft would eventually become 25 hours voice recording as older standard recorders become no longer available.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Even my cheap voice recorder can go for hundreds of hours

      Only marginally related, but I run into this a lot with “Why can’t I have more space in my homedir? I can go buy a disk from BestBuy and it’s only $50.” The two products - a TEAM disk from BB and the media approved for enterprise (let alone emergency/recovery) work are from two different worlds.

  • badbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Don’t get distracted by shiny objects and squirrels here folks. Boeing should be the focus here.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      Eh, why not both? The airplane is a BIG problem, but this is a big issue too that should not be overlooked because we have another problem…

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well yeah, at one point that’s all the technology could handle reasonably. And then it was just never updated.

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          There’s a lot of laws or regulations that end up this way because nobody is required to do any periodic review.

          There’s more than 30,000+ federal statutes alone. Not including agencies, standards boards, state laws, etc.

          As great as that would be, I’m not sure it could be done. (Good use for ai? Read all the laws and spit out a list of obsolete laws or things that need review?)

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The entire airline industry runs on antiquated tech.

          Between new certifications being needed for everything, and an attitude of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, combined with the constant attempts to save money, airplanes are rarely updated.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because if you crash you only need to review the immediate events leading up to a crash. 2 hours is generally plenty. If a plane is hijacked and then crashed, you don’t need 5 or 10 hours of voice to know what caused the crash.

      The point of the CVR was to find out what went wrong or what errors happened leading up to a catastrophe, not what the pilots had for breakfast 5 flights prior.

      • nom345@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Thats not really true at leat according to aircrash investigation shows. Crew can make mistakes hours earlier that might lead to a crash or accident later. Mess up something during preflight checks and that can be the issue during later stage. Flights are long.

      • Hagdos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        But with modern datastorage prices there’s really no excuse not to make it longer. With 15GB you can store 24 hours of extremely high quality audio.

    • Red_October@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The reason the 737 has been redesigned and retooled and extended so many times is that certifying an entirely new airframe with the FAA is a wildly expensive and time consuming process. I’m not denying that Boeing has a lot of influence, but they clearly don’t own the organization that has been such a pain in their ass in the first place.

  • Dettweiler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    I feel like I’m saying this on an almost weekly occurrence:
    McDonnel-Douglas ruined Boeing.

    Aside from that, it’s more appropriate to call them McBoeing these days.

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Do please elaborate, or give some pointers. Am unfamiliar with the background.

      • Dettweiler@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        MD was going out of business. Boeing bought them, but for some reason put the executives from MD in charge of Boeing after the merger. Boeing is now prioritizing cost savings over quality, cutting down worker and training, and has been suffering from quality issues since the merger.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Give Boeing a choice- retain 25 hours of flight records, or pay a billion dollars for every incident where the data is requested but was destroyed to save disk space that costs about nothing to keep

    • Copernican@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      What’s the reason for not doing 25 hours in this day and age? It’s not physical media, right? Digital storage is cheap.

    • Dettweiler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Boeing doesn’t have to fulfill that requirement. The CVR manufacturers will. Most likely it’s Honeywell or L3. Boeing will just have to install upgraded CVRs on new aircraft, while airlines will need to update if the FAA ever gets around to updating the requirements.

  • ErinCrush@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ugh boeing should just be nationalized. I don’t trust them to go above and beyond in safety anymore. I will be purposely trying to fly Airbus if I have the option.

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Until their Air Force One, or any of their other defense products start being produced the way they produce aircraft that the general public uses, we will continue to be the guinea pigs to see how much regulation can be stripped away for profit margins until we start to die at rates that become unprofitable for them. Industry never really learned from the Triangle Shirtwaste Fire and safety regulations will continue to be written in blood because ALL legislators would rather take donations and shut up than challenge a component of the MIC.

  • limelight79@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    I am a little surprised there isn’t a catastrophic “save last 5 minutes” type thing like with a dashcam. I guess in many cases that last 5 minutes would have been saved by the fact that it crashed, but the issue was overlooked for planes that suffer a major event and stay in the air.

    In this case, I seriously doubt the pilots’ conversation is going to add much to the investigation. It seems pretty obvious what happened and outside the pilots’ control.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      My cheap dashcam does rolling saves if days worth of HD video… but aviation safety can only manage 2 hours of audio? Weeks worth of buffer should be trivial to add from both an economic and operational standpoint, and would have solved this issue (though not the door, obviously).

      The logs should be getting pushed to a meaningful amount of local storage, and radio chatter saved centrally (there’s almost certainly amateurs stockpiling these recordings - large institutions are definitely capable).

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Better yet, upload the info regularly. Remember MH370, where we only know roughly what happened because it occasionally checked in with satellites? So the capability exists.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh - we absolutely should be doing that, particularly when the passengers can use the Internet on flights already - but that seems like a (entirely reasonable) heavier lift, compared to a trivial storage upgrade and/or a minor config change to match euro standards or better.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      As far as I know, there’s telemetry from the whole plain, not only the voice recording, so there might have been something useful ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      Edit: but just after responding I found out that the rest of the data is intact, so I was wrong

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, I might have been unclear, I knew that other telemetry was available and it was just the voice recordings that were wiped due to the time they operated after the incident.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Telemetry is going to be numerical data that likely compresses very well, so even with a large amount of sensors I can’t imagine it taking that much.

        And yeah, voice users significantly less than video, where modern cheap dash cams can record days on a small SD card. Methinks flight recorders can do better. At the least they should be viable for the max flight time of the aircraft.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It sure seems like the flight systems were aware of a catastrophic failure of some sort and this could be automated. I mean why does this need manual intervention. It’s not like that data storage for that info is huge, or at least it shouldn’t be.

  • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Keep in mind this is just the voice recordings (what was said inside the cabin and not transmitted), the avionics data and the transmissions they have.

  • badbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Voice recorded data in this incident would get you what? The error was Boeing or door install. Voice recording catch errors of pilots.