Talk:Flight recorder

recording time

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)

"Crash" Ryan

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)

wrong picture

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)

AI generated text?

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)