Evolution of Flight Data Recorders: Advances in Military Technology
Evolution of Flight Data Recorders: Advances in Military Technology
Evolution of Flight Data Recorders: Advances in Military Technology
Abstract:
A flight recorder, commonly known as a black box, is considered the most important
witness in the investigation of air accidents. Flight recorders have been considered
important parts of onboard equipment for both military and civilian aircraft all over the
world already from 1950s. They are used not only for flight evaluation after an unex-
pected event, but also for a pilot training, pilot skills assessment, diagnostics of
on‐board systems, and evaluation of aircraft systems as a whole. Thus, these flight re-
corders contribute to high aircraft reliability and aviation operation safety. This article
focuses on Automatic Deployable Flight Recorders (ADFR), currently not often used in
the military or civilian aircraft. ADFRs are mainly used for aircraft that fly over vast
water areas as classic concept recorders were hard to find when the aircraft crashed
into water. This deployable recorder is a reliable flight safety system used e.g. in US
Navy F/A‐18 multirole combat jets. In addition, creation of this article was inspired by
the change in ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices for Operation of Aircraft,
implemented in July 2016 in the tenth edition of ICAO Annex 6.
Keywords:
aviation safety, flight data recorders, ICAO
1. Introduction
Flight safety is influenced not only by the quality of aircraft manufacturing and the
quality of on‐board systems, but also by the quality of ground support, pilot skills and
an air traffic control organization. Other items positively influencing flight safety are
also on‐board recorders of all types, out of which the most common are flight record-
ers. They are used mainly for reconstruction of the key flight situations and a flight
record when searching for the aircraft incident causes. This type of recorders has also
several other names, such as flight or data recorder, black box and in articles written in
*
Corresponding author: Department of Aircraft Electrical Systems, Faculty of Military Tech-
nology, University of Defence in Brno, Kounicova 65, 662 10 Brno, Czech Republic.
Tel.: +420 973 44 50 61, Fax: +420 973 44 52 35, E-mail: michal.dub@unob.cz
96 M. Dub and J. Parizek
English, the most commonly used names are FDR – Flight Data Recorder, or ADR –
Accident Data Recorder.
The newest edition of ICAO Annex 6 divides flight recorders into two groups –
crash protected flight recorders and lightweight flight recorders. However, lightweight
flight recorders are also crash protected, only then protection requirements do not meet
the requirements for crash protected flight recorders. According to Annex 6, crash
protected flight recorders comprise one or more of the following systems – a flight
data recorder (FDR), a cockpit voice recorder (CVR), an airborne image recorder
(AIR), a data link recorder (DLR). Lightweight flight recorders comprise one or more
of the following systems – an aircraft data recording system (ADRS), a cockpit audio
recording system (CARS), an airborne image recording system (AIRS), a data link
recording system (DLRS) [1].
Fitting Flight Data Recorders into large commercial aircraft became mandatory
after several serious crashes with neither survivors nor witnesses in mid 1950s. At that
time two models of flight recorders were constructed – the General Mills (GM) Ryan
Flight Recorder and the Australian Research Laboratories (ARL) Flight Memory Unit.
GM Flight Recorder was based on patent of Minnesota university professor James J.
Ryan and it was capable of storing four data parameters (velocity, g‐force, altitude,
and time) for up to 300 hours using a needle engraving into metal foil. The prototype
of ARL combined a cockpit voice and data recorder and it was based on an idea of
David Warren to use the voice wire recorder onboard. ARL Flight Memory Recorder
was capable of storing the cockpit speech and eight instrument readings per second for
the four hours [2-4].
While not the first wire recorder to be used by a flight crew, ARL device was the
first to be intended and constructed as a permanent part of aircraft to help accident
investigating boards. Similarly, while not the first flight‐data recorder, GM device was
the first to really emphasize the concept of crash protection, as well as the first to be
put through a rigorous program of scientifically controlled destructive testing. War-
ren’s and Ryan’s devices were not just flight recorders, but flight recorders designed
and deployed above all as accident technologies [5].
The first FDRs could only engrave 5 parameters onto a non‐reusable metal foil.
Czechoslovak Air Force had several Soviet manufactured aircraft with the first known
recorder of type K2‐717 (in Russian called barospeedograph), used for recording bar-
ometric altitude, speed and time using needle engraving into a floated whiting layer on
a paper strip. This recorder was then (in the 1970s) slowly replaced by SARPP-12
recorder, using photographic recording of up to six analogue parameters and ten dis-
crete parameters onto photographic film. The construction of flight recorders went
always hand in hand with the technological abilities of the era, however, the general
structure could be described as sensor – signal processing – recording.
Recorders technology has improved significantly from analogue to digital on
tape, then to solid state able to record over 3000 parameters. To fulfil the expected
task of revealing the causes of flight accidents, the flight recorders must fulfil the
several following important requirements:
• Relevant set of recorded parameters and relevant recording length.
• Survival (no damage) of the recorded data in the case of accident.
• Speedy recovery of the crashed aircraft record.
The relevant set of flight and aircraft parameters is undoubtedly an important re-
quirement for objective assessment of the flight incident. Selection of the parameters
is entirely dependent on the size and equipment of the aircraft. Different flight record-
Evolution of Flight Data Recorders 97
The second generation of flight recorders (1970s and 1980s) was based on the
principle of digital‐magnetic recording onto a plastic or metallic magnetic strip or
a wire. Apart from data recorders, also audio recorders started to appear. The Czecho-
slovak Air Force aircraft had PARES flight recorders (of Czechoslovak production)
and TESTER, BUR and MSRP recorders (of Soviet production). The third generation
of recorders (from 1990s until present) use (theoretically, for unlimited number of
parameters) non‐volatile FLASH or EEPROM memories and are so called recorders
with solid state memory (SSFDR – Solid State Flight Data Recorder – see Fig. 2).
tion authority formed in 1958) to TSO C‐51a, increasing e.g. the impact resistance to
1000 g. These two standards also define, apart from mechanical and heat resistance,
the resistance to salt water attack and the resistance to operational aircraft liquids
attack including extinguishing agents, as well as they also describe test methods for
the flight recorders testing.
For the generation of the solid state recorders, standard TSO C‐124 has been ap-
plied since 1992. This standard defines that the recording should withstand:
• Mechanical impact: 3400 g for 6.5 milliseconds.
• Penetration: 227 kg pin dropped 3 m, each face.
• Crushing force: 22 250 N for 5 minutes each axis.
• Fire: 1100 °C for 30 minutes.
• Seawater pressure: of 60 MPa (depth of 6 000 m) for 24 hours.
• Seawater immersion: up to the depth of 3 meters for 30 days.
• Aircraft fluids (jet fuel, oil, hydraulics etc.) contact: for 48 hours.
• Extinguishing fluids contact: for 8 hours.
The fulfilment of the above mentioned requirements is technically feasible only
thanks to the small dimensions of the solid state memories (board with memories
covers only about 5 % of the whole volume of the protected memory unit), and for
example, the recording protection technology against flame is usually the know‐how
of the FDR manufacturer.
European organisation dealing with standards for flight recorders endurance is
EUROCAE (European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment). European stand-
ards concerning endurance have preceded the American standards that are based on the
European once. For example, European standard ED 55 was accepted in May 1990
whereas TSO‐C124a was accepted in January 1996. The newest standard ED 112
(merging standards for FDR and CVR, thus ED 55 and ED 56) from 2003 (ED‐112A
from 2013) was a baseline for TSO‐C124b from 2007 (TSOC‐124c from 2013) [7‐8].
In order to locate the protected memory unit, the flight recorders used in flights
over vast water areas, are equipped with ULB (Underwater Locator Beacon). If the
aircraft crashes into the sea or the ocean, the water activates this beacon that starts
transmitting 10 millisecond pulse signal every second with a frequency of 37.5 kHz.
According to the actual charge of the battery, it can transmit over a period of 30-90
days. Acoustic signals of these beacons should be well audible in good conditions
within the quite small range of 5 km if considering the size and depth of the sea and
the ocean. Additional locator called ULD (Underwater Locator Device) operating at
a frequency of 8.8 kHz is attached to the airframe of airplanes performing public
transport flights over maritime areas to locate aeroplane wreckage below the surface of
water (i.e. increasing range) [1, 9].
inaccessible areas. Emergency Locator Transmitters ELT (also called EPIRB – Emer-
gency Position Indicating Radio Beacon; or ELB – Emergency Locator Beacon; or
PLB – Personal Locator Beacon) can be activated manually or automatically. They
transmit emergency signal on the frequency of 406 MHZ and more modern transmit-
ters use also GPS receivers and thus it is possible to recover them fast and accurately
using satellites.
Both above mentioned patents are based on the same principle – a device which
needs protection from the destructive action of the crash is inserted into a housing and
then attached to the aircraft so that as soon as a crash is identified, the device can be
relatively easily detached from the aircraft. Thus, this device lands onto a terrain or
water area separately, away from the crash epicentre and away from the destructive
conditions. It is clear that impact and crash forces will be in this case much lower than
on the aircraft, the device will not be exposed to high temperatures and thus less atten-
tion and money can be paid to the device protection against damage. However, for the
case of landing on water, the device has to be afloat, ensuring unlimited floatability
and has to have emergency signal transmitter, enabling the device’s localisation.
Deployable recorders were not, according to the accessible resources, used during
the development of the first and second generation flight recorders. Perhaps, it was
due to the fact that the then used constructions were quite heavy and large and also
that there was no option for locating the recorders using satellites. The first search and
rescue satellite system Cospas‐Sarsat was established already in 1979, and in 1982 was
used to rescue 3 people from a small crashed aeroplane. However, only in 1988
a contract about final rescue organisation structure was signed, allowing the rescue of
human lives all over the world [12].
Robert Austin, a system engineer of DRS Flight Safety and Communications
Company, mentioned in his publications that deployable beacons and recorders of
DRS Company have been flying in military jet planes, turbo‐propeller planes and
helicopters for more than 30 years. That would mean that they were used at least from
1970. However, from the above mentioned reasons, they were most likely used only
regionally. In the late 1990s, DRS Company gained contracts for the modernisation of
Canadian Marines patrol aircraft CP‐140, F/A‐18 Hornet aircraft of American Marines
and Tornado aircraft of German Air Force [13-14].
The modernization consisted of replacement of existing recording systems by de-
ployable system EAS‐3000F that integrated voice and data recorder and emergency
locator transmitter (CVR + FDR + ELT) into one unit. This article also stated that
DRS Company had gained contracts for EAS‐3000 (helicopter version of this system)
for the modernisation of Canadian Cormorant Search and Rescue helicopters, United
Kingdom Marines, Italian Marines and Tokio Metropolitan Police helicopters. The
same article also cited that currently used deployable systems were mainly used in
aircraft and helicopters of Marines, rescue systems or police and also in Norwegian
helicopters of Norsk Helikopter Company, transferring workers to oil rigs in the North
Sea [15].
mitter (28), rocket engine (20), inertia switches kit (36-40), battery (66), thermal
switch (142) and parachute (31).
Fig. 4 ADFR installed on AP‐3C Orion and S‐70 Seahawk [DRS technologies]
102 M. Dub and J. Parizek
Depending on the used model, the deployment system consists of a set of sensors
placed in various parts of the aircraft – impact sensors, airframe integrity sensors and
immersion sensors (0.9 m depth). The control unit is configured to activate the de-
ployment when the deployment criteria are fulfilled. The deployment criteria are
gradually evaluated and four accident risk levels are set depending on the flight mode
and parameters. The system differentiates between a ground activity phase, a take‐off
phase, a flight phase and a landing phase. The system sensitivity to the signals coming
from the sensors and deciding the recorder deployment is then increasing with the
increased risk of an accident. The control unit also evaluates signals from the aircraft
warning systems and warns the pilot about the failure of important aircraft systems,
about the loss of altitude, oncoming collision, etc.
It is clear that, unlike the patented system in 1960s, the current systems are more
sophisticated and advanced due to the availability of microprocessors and MEMS
technologies. Therefore, it is a paradox that the unlimited floatability of these modern
systems and at the same time the impact protection are assured by an ‘ordinary’ water-
proof foam that fills the whole free space of the system housing. Principles of the
system release and deployment can vary.
The system on F‐18 aircraft uses, for a reliable deployment during an accident in
high speed, a small pyrotechnical cartridge, while system DFIR 2100 for Boeings
RC‐135 and other subsonic aircraft uses electromagnetic principle during deployment,
i.e. an electromagnet and a spring. The deployment time is in this case less than 50
milliseconds, regardless the speed and the aircraft position [13].
Many companies from all over the world are manufacturing flight recorders with
protected memory, including the one from made in the Czech Republic (SPEEL Pra-
gue). However, deployable recorders are, according to the newest information,
manufactured only by DRS Technologies Inc., based in Arlington, Virginia, USA [18].
• the ADFR deployment shall not significantly reduce the chance of survival of
the recorder and of successful transmission by its ELT;
• the ADFR deployment shall not release more than one piece;
• an alert shall be made to the flight crew when the ADFR is no longer captive to
the aircraft;
• the flight crew shall have no means to disable ADFR deployment when the air-
craft is airborne;
• the ADFR shall contain an integrated ELT, which shall activate automatically
during the deployment sequence. Such ELT may be of a type that is activated in
flight, providing information from which a position can be determined;
• and the integrated ELT of an ADFR shall satisfy the same requirements as an
ELT required to be installed on an aircraft. The integrated ELT shall at least
have the same performance as the fixed ELT to maximize detection of the
transmitted signal.
4. Conclusions
Each concept of the flight recorder brings certain advantages and disadvantages. The
disadvantages are going to show only in particular unsuitable conditions for the partic-
ular recorder type. There are many other recent cases, for example MH370 aircraft of
Malaysia Airlines, on 7th March 2014, when after 41 minutes of flight, the aircraft lost
contact with the control centre and stopped replying to the radar responder. The air-
craft (and the onboard recorder with protected memory) have not been so far
recovered. As for the deployable recorder, it is technically possible that the system
would wrongly evaluate the situation as an emergency, deploy the recorder and the
plane would continue being airborne. Then, the recording would be lost for the rest of
the flight. Current trend of the onboard recorders includes integration of the individual
recorder types into one unit, making their size smaller and improving the data protec-
tion against harsh environments.
Also, current aircraft accidents and disasters drive the improvement for protec-
tion of the aircraft data log and the flight data log. One of the first improvement ideas
was to increase the battery capacity for acoustic beacon to extend the working time of
the beacon from 30 to 90 days and thus increase the chances of recovering the record-
ers (mandatory from 1 January 2018). Two advanced options of flight recorders
installation were also suggested. The first option required installing two combined
CVR/FDR recorders with protected memory. One would be installed near the aircraft
nose, the second near the aircraft tail and both would record the same voice and data
information. The second option would require installation of two different recorders –
one recorder with protected memory and the second recorder would be a deployable
recorder. Then, the aircraft would have both types of recorders. Airbus SE Company
now considers utilising both options and the company will be certified for installations
of DFIRS for aircraft A350 in 2019 [1, 21].
The last known idea introduced a concept for ground collecting and analysing
flight data. The main idea of this system is that all information about the aircraft and
flight would be transferred online using ground communication stations or satellite
networks and then stored at the ground monitoring station for later analysis. Special
software would identify a non‐standard behaviour of the aircraft in real time (for ex-
ample a flight diversion from the usual route, unusual position or vertical speed of the
aircraft, etc.) and apply a relevant corrective action if needed. This idea was most
Evolution of Flight Data Recorders 105
likely planned mainly for civilian airline aircraft as it may attract a few concerns about
the complexity and financing of the implementation, international relations, operation
system responsibilities and securing the system against political changes or similar
events [22].
Based on the air transport development, covering mainly an increase of power
and flight density, it is clear that the need for flight recorders or any other device for
analysing emergency situations is and always will be always increasing. Current mod-
ern technologies are enabling miniaturisation, back‐ups, unsuitable conditions
protection, large data transfers, implementation of the earlier‐proposed but
not‐yet‐implemented principles, but cost will always be considered when implement-
ing technologies for increasing flight reliability and safety. On the one hand,
manufacturers can provide the best equipped and the most reliable aircraft, but on the
other hand, there are many cases where financial gain or political issues were of more
interest than flight safety.
Acknowledgement
The work presented in this article has been supported by the Ministry of Defence of
the Czech Republic (UoD development program “Research of sensor and control
systems to achieve battlefield information superiority”).
References
[1] Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Part I – International
Commercial Air Transport – Airplanes. Tenth edition. Montreal: ICAO, 2016.
[2] US Patent 2959459 Flight Recorder [on‐line]. Patented November 8, 1960. [cit.
2017-09-25]. Available from <http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid
=02959459>.
[3] WARREN, D. A Device for Assisting Investigation into Aircraft Accidents. Mel-
bourne: Aeronautical Research Laboratories, 1954. Mechanical Engineering
Technical Memorandum 142.
[4] SEAR, J. The ARL ‘Black Box’ Flight Recorder – Invention and Memory. Mel-
bourne: University of Melbourne, 2001, 37 p. Thesis Ref. 14567 for Bachelor of
Arts (Honours), Department of History, Faculty of Arts.
[5] SIEGEL, G. Technologies of Accident: Forensic Media, Crash Analysis, and the
Redefinition of Progress. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2005. 245 p.
[6] ROSENBAUER, J.E. Modern Aircraft Accident Investigation Equipment and
Techniques [on‐line]. Lockheed Horizons. Winter 1981-1982, p. 20-27 [cit. 2017-
09-24]. Available from <https://macmanx.com/modern-aircraft-accident-
investigation-equipment-and-techniques/>.
[7] TSO: Technical Standard Orders© [on‐line]. 2017 [cit. 2017-10-15]. FAA. Avail-
able from <http://rgl.faa.gov/>.
[8] Eurocae© [on‐line]. 2017 [cit. 2017-09-25]. Available from <https://www.
eurocae.net>.
[9] US Patent 4951263 Spread Spectrum Underwater Location Beacon System
[on‐line]. Patented August 21, 1990. [cit. 2017-08-29]. Available from
<http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=04951263>.
106 M. Dub and J. Parizek
[10] US Patent 3140847 Ejectable Flight Recorder [on‐line]. Patented July 14, 1964.
[cit. 2017-08-29]. Available from <http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&
docid=03140847>.
[11] US Patent 2959671 Crash Position Indicator For Aircraft [on‐line]. [cit. 2017-
08-29]. Available from <http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=0295
9671>. Patented November 8, 1960.
[12] LEVESQUE, D. (Ed.) The History and Experience of the International Cospas-
Sarsat Programme for Search and Rescue. Paris: International Astronautical
Federation, 2016 [cit. 2017-09-20]. Available from <http://www.iafastro.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/Cospas-Sarsat-Report-1.pdf>.
[13] AUSTIN, R.P. The Use Of Deployable Flight Recorders in Dual Combi Recorder
Installations [on‐line]. 1999 [cit. 2017-09-25]. Available from
<http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Publications/pdf_library/austin.pdf>.
[14] DRS Technologies Awarded $2 Million Contract to Provide Emergency Avionics
Systems for Canadian CP-140 Aircraft. Business Wire. 1998, December 3 [cit.
2017-08-25]. Available from <https://www.thefreelibrary.com/DRS+Technolo
gies+Awarded+%242+Million+Contract+to+Provide+Emergency...-
a053344501>.
[15] DRS Technologies Awarded Contract to Produce Deployable Flight Recorders
for U.S. Navy Super Hornets. Business Wire. 2004, August 24 [cit. 2017-07-02].
Available from <https://www.thefreelibrary.com/DRS+Technologies+Awarded+
Contract+to+Produce+Deployable+Flight...-a064817942>.
[16] US Patent 8706357 Flight Recorder Deployment System and Method [on‐line].
Patented April 22, 2014. [cit. 2017-08-29]. Available from <http://pdfpiw.
uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=08706357>.
[17] US Patent 9296489 Flight Recorder Deployment Mechanism [on‐line]. Patented
March 29, 2016. [cit. 2017-08-29]. Available from <http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw
?PageNum=0&docid=09296489>.
[18] ROSENBACH, von A. and SASIDHARAN, A. Jane’s Flight Avionics 2016-
2017. HIS Jane’s, 2015. ISBN 978-0-7106-3210-4.
[19] TEGLER. J. DFIRS Makes a 4,000 Mile Journey to Recovery [on‐line]. 14 June
2011 [cit. 2017-08-29]. Defense Media Network. Available from
<http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/dfirs-makes-4000-mile-journey-
recovery/>.
[20] Surfer Finds 21st Century ‘Message in a Bottle’ on Hawaii Beach [on‐line]. 18
March 2011 [cit. 2017-08-29]. Navair News. Available from <http://www.
navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4530>.
[21] WALTON, J. Airbus To Introduce Deployable Black Boxes [on‐line]. 27 June
2017 [cit. 2017-09-25]. Available from <http://rotate.aero/blog/entry/airbus-to-
introduce-deployable-black-boxes>.
[22] KAVI, K.M. Beyond the Black Box. IEEE Spectrum, 2010, vol. 47, no. 8, p. 46-
51. DOI 10.1109/MSPEC.2010.5520630.