Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Air France 447 Black Boxes Readable

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the key-evidence dept.

Transportation 116

An anonymous reader writes "It's not a lengthy press release, but it's good news: the memory cards for the flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the Air France 447 crash in 2009, recently recovered from the sea floor almost two years later, are readable. The data was recovered over the weekend and includes the full two hours of cockpit recording. Apparently it will take weeks for analysis of the data, but it looks like the challenging recovery effort is paying off in a big way. Hopefully detailed answers about the cause of the crash will follow."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

KreAture (105311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145244)

Tragic story so far, but atleast it shows the viability of solid-state memory. On a sidenote: If there is only 2 hours of voice recording, why will it take weeks to listen to it?

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36145282)

It's probably in French.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145438)

Probably an endless stream of cussing towards Airbus and "that damned computer".

The only wires planes should fly by should be steel wires.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (4, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145626)

Tell that to B-2 pilots.

Actually scratch that. Tell that to ANY modern pilot, be he military or civilian. For added bonus, tell that to greens all over the world and be lynched on the spot, as unstable aircraft are significantly more fuel efficient and can only be flown with fly-by-wire. Trying to fly it manually will result in very spectacular and fiery ending.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36147618)

"result in very spectacular and fiery ending."

Is it irony that you should choose this phraseology to describe the perils of not flying by wire when this was the exact fate of Air France 447?

Sorry..I'm old fashion. Steel cables or worst case, hydraulics. Better yet...both!

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36147830)

was the exact fate of Air France 447?

Where did you read that?

Care to provide a citation. As far as I know CASA and other agencies dont have a clue why AF447 crashed.

This is why the black box will take so long to analyse (including verifying the contents of the black box itself).

Until then, I'm sticking with what Luckyo said. Modern planes, especially the tail-less delta winged variety are not easy to fly unassisted.

BTW, in the age of fly by wire, pilot error remains the number one cause of accidents. Not begrudging pilots mind you, air accidents are rare and flying isn't easy.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36147936)

You need a citation? Are you fucking kidding me?

You don't think being spread out over hundreds of miles of the Atlantic is a spectacular crash?

I'm not saying the computers caused the crash (although there was lot's of discussion of sensor failure or icing that could have confused the computers...and no, I'm not going to give you a fucking citation, you lazy ass. Fucking try Google.)

What I was saying is that he choose to describe the end result of flying large planes without fly-by-wire using a same description of what undoubtedly happened to Air France 447...a very spectacular crash.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36148200)

You need a citation? Are you fucking kidding me?

No. Give me a citation to the definitive cause of the crash.

You don't think being spread out over hundreds of miles of the Atlantic is a spectacular crash?

You've said nothing about the cause.

Using that evidence I propose that they upset the invisible pink unicorn and were torn asunder by the noodly appendages of the Blessed FSM.

Of course I'm not going to provide a citation because there was a spectacular crash that proves everything I said.

What I was saying is that he choose to describe the end result of flying large planes without fly-by-wire using a same description of what undoubtedly happened to Air France 447

Bad strawman is bad.

You have not provided any link between potential risks using FBW and AF447.

Further more you've failed to even prove there is a significant danger of fly by wire systems when we have several decades of proof to the contrary.

Also swearing and demanding I find the evidence for you provides seals the case that you have no clue what you're on about. Please learn how to do research and some manners.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#36151446)

BTW, in the age of fly by wire, pilot error remains the number one cause of accidents.

I believe the reason for that is that when it all goes wrong the computer disengages the autopilot and hands control over to the meat pilots...

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36147858)

So you know better than Boeing, Airbus and Embraer who have all gone FBW? In all seriousness, hydraulic failures have caused a shitload of accidents but as a regular at jetphotos.net I don't recall a single accident where FBW would've been an issue. It's simply impossible to make hydraulics tolerate various other failures as well as FBW since hydraulic cables take more space and are more vulnerable when e.g. the fuselage is ruptured, an engine explodes or something else happens. And you do realize that flight crews use the autopilot precisely the same way regardless of whether the aircraft is FBW or not-so-modern-anymore hydraulics? This flight was - just like every other flight - obviously on autopilot during cruise when things started to go wrong. What remains to be found out is what action the crew were able to take albeit their options were obviously limited when they were flying in the "coffin corner".

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36148216)

" I don't recall a single accident where FBW would've been an issue. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZB-iziY2Bw

You are so incompetent, you couldn't pour piss out of a boot without reading the instructions on the bottom of the heel.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36150650)

Evidently you don't know what FBW means, if you think that that was an FBW issue.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153100)

Because planes with manually controlled hydraulics never had control failures or crashed, ever. Oh, and congratulations on your psychic powers for knowing that the crash was caused by a fly-by-wire failure before any of the evidence has been evaluated. Can you tell me where I should be investing in the stock market?

Re: B-2 Pilots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36148292)

Tell the B-2 Pilots to extend the landing-gear BEFORE attempting to land the aircraft!

B-2 precursors B-49, Go-229 didn't work w/o FWB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36150332)

Actually there were B-2 like full flying wings in the steel cables and hydraulics golden era of the 1940s. The Gotha-Horten Go-229 from the Third Reich and the Northrop B-49 from the USA. Both crashed in prototype stage, the B-49 even after it had acquired small vertical stabilizers. Fly by wire is very much required for modern airplanes. Soon even the tiny ones, the likeness of Cessna-172 may have FWB to protect the pilot and passengers against human stupidity.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36152212)

On a more recent news piece I just read, but can't find the link, it's already stated that the fault was not an Airbus fault. (No fault on the operation of the aircraft, but it was rather fault either of the Air France security procedures or crew fault).
By the way, back in 2009 I said it would be the crew's fault, since everyone that could counter that was dead anyways...

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36145988)

Probably an endless stream of cussing towards Airbus and "that damned computer".

The only wires planes should fly by should be steel wires.

Considering that Airbus had manslaughter charges filed against them and were then willing to pay for most of this final search attempt they are at least betting that they aren't at fault.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146714)

    Trust me, it's not modern airline pilots who are screaming that.

    Not to make light with a car analogy, but.... :)

  I was driving out to watch the shuttle launch this weekend (yes, it was cool, even though there were low clouds). About 45 minutes into the trip, my truck stalled. It took a few tries, and it started back up. I happened to have my OBD-II reader with me, so I stopped at the next exit and checked for codes. No current codes, but a pending code for an intermittent fault with the crank position sensor. Hrm. It hadn't done that before. I stopped by a local parts store (found via GPS, not by knowing the shitty area), grabbed one, and continued on the trip. The car was acting fine for over an hour, and suddenly nothing.

    So just over an hour, and just about 100 miles from home, the engine cut out, and wouldn't restart. 5 minutes of finding the right tool in the back (I travel prepared), and 2 minutes changing the parts, and I was on my way.

    Cruising along on the Interstate, everything was fine. When we got close to Titusville, it started shifting funny, and the speedometer became erratic at anything below highway speeds. No codes, no pending codes, nothing. The common solution, the vehicle speed sensor (VSS). There happen to be two VSS sensors (transmission and transfer case). Two VSS sensors later, and all is fine again.

    The computer uses the VSS, TPS, and a few other things to determine what gear the transmission should be in. Cruising along at 45mph it'll up and down shift as it sees fit, which is much less than ideal.

    So manually shifting the automatic to 3rd gear to drive at 45mph or below, and shifting to 4/OD to drive above 55 was much less than ideal.

    There's nothing like fucked up sensor to ruin your day. If I hadn't been lucky enough to catch the pending code and pick up the crank position sensor, I would have been towed to a shop would would have been very happy to overcharge me for changing it.

    The engine is based on one with a great lineage, and the older pre-computerized parts are interchangeable, and the swap would be about $300 in parts. That would take care of any engine stopping problems. I haven't found a compatible transmission option that fit with the transfer case and drive shaft lengths. {sigh}.

    In my case, a faulty sensor or three just made the trip difficult. In the case of an airliner, ... well ... non-running engines, or inability to receive accurate airspeed readings are rather catastrophic. In the case of computer *ASSISTED* systems, the pilot can fly by the seat of his pants. Great, so the IAS is 0 knots. Big deal. We see clouds going by, the stick isn't shaking, and the physical stall horns aren't sounding. IAS of 999 knots means throttle back, and pull up to bleed some speed off. If that IAS is wrong, you're going to discover what it was like to be the apple falling at Newton's head.

    The car with failed sensors like this doesn't make the news. Well, not any more than me bitching about it. In a commercial aircraft, it'll make the news for years, a fortune being paid out to the victim's families.

    I'm not trying to argue that my car is more important than an airliner, but we see improperly implemented technology does cause lots of problems, which cannot be resolved by any degree of operator skill.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

KreAture (105311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146876)

The sensors are actually very good.
The connectors used to interface with the sensors are however the cheapest you can get that has a vibration-rating.
It's sad, but there are connectors that will last the life of a car, but they will most likely never be found in one due to cost. Most car-connectors aren't even properly dust and mosture-proofed.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36148006)

    Well, most automotive sensors I've seen for essential purposes (like engine and drivetrain monitoring and controls), are "Weatherpack" connectors, which do an excellent job. I don't know how the sensors I replaced were damaged, but it was physically obvious on the interior portion. I haven't seen a failed weatherpack connector yet. I have seem some that weren't attached correctly (stuffed in "good enough", but not electrically sound).

    Most aviation connections that I've seen are screw on connecters. That is, they push into place, and then the ring is tightened to secure it in place. I don't do much with aviation, but I've observed these used quite frequently.

    Neither takes into account stupidity of people who think they know what they're doing. I've seen duct-tape wrapped wires (hint: conductive), wires, and wires just twisted together and jammed under the carpet. Those always make for fun diagnosing problems. For some reason, I swear every friend of mine that has bought a used car, gets one that someone had put an amp and sub in the rear, and never thought out the design. I was helping a friend with his SUV, and found a huge (2 AWG, I believe) wire screwed to the positive battery terminal with a sheet metal screw, passed through a hole with no grommet (but yes, sharp metal), snaked through the cabin, finally ending under the carpet by the rear doors. The last 4" were stripped (why? I don't know), and it was precariously close to bare metal. Well, precariously as in there was evidence of arcing. There was no fuse anywhere from the batter to the end of the wire.

    Sometimes I wish they didn't sell all the parts for any idiot to play with their wiring. Then again, it would make it more difficult for me to get parts and set things up correctly. :)

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36150256)

I had a Weatherpak connector (not quoted, because I believe it actually was a Weatherpak(tm) and not just something similar) fail: The connector on the coolant temperature sensor on my work truck broke into little pieces when I was changing the spark plug wires, just a few weeks ago.

Of course, changing plug wires is one of the lowest-impact maintenance events that ever happens on a vehicle. If I'd broken it doing something else (like wrenching out a stuck spark plug with a breaker bar, two u-joints, various extensions, and grunt, and a blackened thumbnail), that would seem reasonable, but this wasn't one of those situations.

Further investigation revealed that that the sensor-side of the connector was very brittle, and bits would break off easily in my fingers: One might say it had intrinsically failed all on its own long before I nudged it into disintegration: If it hadn't been nudged by me, it would've nudged itself eventually. Fortunately, water seemed to have mostly stayed out and the cable-end of the connector seemed OK, but if I hadn't nudged it into complete failure at that time it might have festered into a more difficult repair.

It was an OEM sensor, as supplied by the factory, on a 2002 GMC Safari with a bit less than 125k miles. For this sort of failure, I consider it neither particularly old, nor high-mileage: It was early.

The replacement was cheap and easy to find, and the truck would've run mostly properly it broken, but the point is simple: Just because it's Weatherpak doesn't mean it'll last forever.

From the war stories department, I've seen more than several instances of unfused wire running through a jagged hole in the firewall before being wedged between the battery and the positive cable on a side-terminal GM, to actual working fire trucks with looms of plastic-insulated wire that had lost its plasticity, cracked, and would short randomly with very pretty sparks if wiggled anywhere under the dash.

I once saw an antenna cable catch fire that was routed through the roof of a brand new ambulance. (The ambulance survived, the fire self-extinguished, and the tech responsible learned a few things about assumptions, as did the rest of us.)

Part of my day job involves working with sirens, lights, and communications on public safety vehicles. Much of it is good (or at least safe) work, some of it is excellent, but the rest of the stuff I find is so scary that I cannot (in good conscience) leave it that way even if it's unrelated to the other work that I'm doing. This is the level of incidental repair work where I start taking pictures and documenting every splice, and the customer is always glad to have it fixed and always pays the bill, but...

Back to your main topic (if you're reading this far), what are you using for an ODB-II reader? I've been thinking of putting together some kit (possibly over Bluetooth so it works with both my Droid and laptop) to better understand the workings of that truck, and to diagnose it on the go (if I'm going anywhere far, it's likely for work) and am interested in any opinions or anecdotes you have about specific gear. (And since I'm a sucker for helping folks out, I'll probably end up using it on a lot of different vehicles...)

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153664)

    I can't say that I recall ever seeing a broken WeatherPak connector. Well, unless someone took a screwdriver or hammer to it. :)

Back to your main topic (if you're reading this far), what are you using for an ODB-II reader? I've been thinking of putting together some kit (possibly over Bluetooth so it works with both my Droid and laptop) to better understand the workings of that truck, and to diagnose it on the go (if I'm going anywhere far, it's likely for work) and am interested in any opinions or anecdotes you have about specific gear. (And since I'm a sucker for helping folks out, I'll probably end up using it on a lot of different vehicles...)

    I had looked at lots of options. I've wanted to integrate something into my primary vehicle (oddly enough, not the one I had problems with this weekend). I bought three that were ELM327 based. One was a knock-off from eBay. It didn't work when I received it. The next was one of the suggested commercial versions, connected via RS232. The first worked for about an hour. Restarting the car was enough to kill it. I'm guessing a power surge, but I'd never encountered a power surge in that vehicle. I returned it to the manufacturer, who replaced it with another, that failed after about 2 hours.

    What I'm using now is an Actron OBDII scanner. It was sold on clearance for $100 a few years ago. It physically resembles the CP9185. It's been dropped, tossed in the back of cars, trunks, stepped on, run over (BTW, don't loan tools out, they'll get run over). Despite all of that, it works great. It does the code scanning perfectly, and live sensor monitoring. I've used the live sensor monitoring to catch problems with TPS (throttle position sensor), O2S (Oxygen sensor), and VSS (Vehicle speed sensor). The good part has been, it's *not* mounted in the vehicle. I toss it in my toolbox. Sometimes my "toolbox" is just a cardboard or plastic box, if my back is acting up, and I can't lift my regular toolbox. I have lots of damage in my back. Unfortunately, the only monitoring that I have for that are my own head, and MRI's. :)

    I fixed a friend-of-a-friend's truck a while back. His TPS was bad. He'd be driving, and the truck would stall intermittently. 3 shops, including the dealership, couldn't diagnose it. They were more than happy to fix things that weren't broken though. I had my educated guess (between understanding engines, but no specific knowledge of his truck, and the OBDII information) in about 5 minutes, and went back to his place the next morning with the parts. The last I heard, it was still running perfectly.

    All in all, I've probably replaced more sensors and electronic controls than actual mechanical parts. It's almost like they intend these parts to fail, to keep the work-load up at the dealership. The crankshaft position sensor that failed last weekend, when I pulled it out, I showed my girlfriend. She was in the passenger seat waiting for me to fix it, or call AAA for a tow. The inside part of the the sensor had started to come apart, which probably resulted in the "intermittent" functionality. it probably broke a wire inside. I put it back in the box, and threw it in my toolbox for later "examination" (with cutters and a hammer).

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36151690)

The damning thing about this accident is that the manufacturer told Air France that pitons freezing over were a problem and that they should be changed. Air France started doing it but had not got around to this aircraft yet. Of course we don't know for sure that it was piton failure but it seems like the most reasonable explanation given the available evidence.

Much like Fukushima a company knew there was a potential problem but figured that it wasn't urgent enough to spend a lot of money on. In both cases the regulator/government has required fixes or decommissioning in the aftermath of a disaster.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153746)

    Ya, a lot of things get a low priority if they aren't causing problems all the time. So an engine stalls occasionally, or the pitot tube freezes sometimes, it's not catastrophic. Pilots learn work-arounds until the problem is fixed. Well, until we see something catastrophic like this.

    I agree, it does sound like the pitot tube failure. Being where it crashed, I don't think we'll be able to find out exactly what happened. It could have been ice (most likely), but it could have been bugs hit on takeoff that finally got pushed back into the sensor, or even a wire came loose. If it was the first, a pitot heater would resolve it. If it were the other two, then the pitot heater would have just been a decoration.

    Still, I'm sure pilots and passengers alike would prefer to know that the best bug fixes had been put into place. Really, how long would it take to swap the tube? It could be done while the aircraft was stopped for the night between any trips. I shouldn't expect that more than a week would need to go by between releasing the fix, and implementation.

    But, we see that all through IT too. So a drive throws an occasional error, or there are 100 cases of malware wiping out an OS. It isn't a problem until it becomes catastrophic. We like to hold airlines and nuclear power plants to a higher standard than our own industry, but we all do the same things.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36149024)

Actually, there are already reports saying that according to "leaked" information from the investigators, after preliminary analysis of the FDR contents, the likely cause of the crash is not an aircraft malfunction. See this very rough [google.co.uk] google translation. Of course, such early reports should be taken with a lot of caution, but they come from a rather respectable source.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36151352)

The page you requested does not exist
or she is no longer accessible at this address

But thanks for trying. I do find it rather funny that Google assumes a female gender for the site.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36150526)

Yup, because no aircraft controlled by steel wires has ever crashed, had a malfunction, had a gearing jam, had a wire snap, had any number of other mechanical issues.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36151002)

Or this: [midwestexp...rlines.org]

a Midwest charter MD-81 carrying then presidential candidate Barack Obama, made an emergency landing at Lamber Filed in St. Louis, Missouri after an evacuation slide inside the plane underneath the tail in the airstair passage way deployed, interfering with the plane’s control cables.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

splashbot (1179993) | more than 3 years ago | (#36150608)

Yeh I hear you on the Human having the final say-so over a computer, but the 787, which is built using the Human as the final arbiter of the control, will use Electrically actuated control surfaces, so that means they will fly by (control) wires (possibly fiber optic), rather than hydraulic hoses, witch bleed out when cut.

Oblig: Futurama (1)

siglercm (6059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36148576)

It's probably in French.

Farnsworth: And this is my universal translator. Unfortunately so far it only translates into an incomprehensible dead language.
Cubert: Hello.
Universal Translator: Bonjour!
Farnsworth: Crazy gibberish!

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145292)

They're not just listening to it. There are a lot of recovery techniques that must be performed very carefully and with strict controls to recover every last bit of intelligible information from those media.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

KreAture (105311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145526)

Don't you think listening to it should be a first step?
They may take whatever time they like on the rest, but I would urge them to start by giving it a good listen.
Then they can submit a initial assumption based on this alone, and just make a point of it being preliminary.
After all, we are dying (bad choice of word? sorry) to know.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145574)

Don't you think listening to it should be a first step?

No. I think the first step is to transfer the data onto a safe medium so that they can listen to it without risking damage to the box.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

KreAture (105311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145604)

They already took a copy.
But I do agree, a working-copy is ofcource a first step, after a copy of the original just in case...

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146090)

They already took a copy. But I do agree, a working-copy is ofcource a first step, after a copy of the original just in case...

I thought we were all computer professionals here?! Step one: Run all reports and fixes directly on a production system without testing. [duck-able comment /]

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146092)

Don't you think listening to it should be a first step?

There's a lot more information than just the voice recordings. They'll likely have a reasonable guess fairly quickly, but it takes time to piece together a clear picture of what happened. It may turn out that the voice recordings don't reveal much at all. Often it's a bunch of routine chatter followed by sudden clipped brief exchanges while the pilots struggle to deal with whatever emergency has arisen.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146630)

Once they've filtered the cockpit voice recordings. There'll be all kinds of noise, especially during a major storm. Towards the end, there'll be a multitude of sirens, klaxons, buzzers and alarm clocks going off. But you can't just filter any old noise, you have to filter out the noise that adds nothing but keep in all the noise that is important. That's harder than just applying a basic filter.

Try transcribing the dialog off a movie without rewinding it. You'll find it's hard. Takes longer than the movie actually runs for. Now try doing the same with a jet engine stuffed in one ear and a hundred games consoles wailing at the other. It's probably going to take a LOT longer than it did when things were quiet.

The text depends on whether the recording is time-continuous or is triggered by sound. It's probably the former, since you want to record even slight fluctuations in engine sounds, or other subtle disturbances, but I don't want to assume. Recording change is cheaper than recording a constant. If there's any nonlinearity to the recording, working out when things were said would be harder.

And, finally, the sounds of the controls being operated has to be time-synchronized with the data recorder's recording of those events taking place, so allowing the instrument readings (as far as are recorded on the data recorder) to be correlated with the speech.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36148218)

your doing a good job of illustrating engineer's overthink.

i agree with the op. just listen to the damn thing. your brain should
filter out most unwanted noises.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36145384)

On a sidenote: If there is only 2 hours of voice recording, why will it take weeks to listen to it?

flight data probably - lots of numbers the techs need to make sense of

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36145440)

The article says that they "recovered the complete contents of the flight data recorder ***and*** the last two hours of cockpit conversation" It wont take two weeks to listen to two hours of audio, it will take two weeks to analyse " the complete contents of the flight data recorder" along with "the last two hours of cockpit conversation"

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146192)

This is a very important point. The voice recordings will not make sense or give an accurate picture of what happened without being put in the proper context. In this case, the context of what was happening in the flight and what the aircraft told them about it in synchronization with the voice recordings. The voice recording on its own *could* give a completely misleading view of what happened otherwise.

I'm curious of whether this will help convict or exonerate Air Bus on their manslaughter charges.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (3, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145480)

Two hours voice recording, data logs from a few hundred sensors, it all has to be done meticulously and perfectly in accordance with aviation authorities from Brazil, the UK, France, Germany and the United States. And lawyers, alot of lawyers.

"The download was completed in the presence of two Brazilian investigators of the Aeronautical Accidents Investigation and Prevention Center (CENIPA), two British investigators of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), two German investigators of the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Investigation (BFU), one American investigator of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an officer of the French judicial police, and a court expert. The entire download was filmed and recorded."

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/info16may2011.en.php [bea.aero]

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36145934)

If only they did this when they made a copy of Obama's birth certificate...

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

OnlineAlias (828288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146142)

This is kind of silly. Ok, maybe the first capturing of the data is important, but subsequent copies are trivial. And I'm sure they have software they can plug it all into that will show exactly what the plane was doing through the entire incident. This "weeks of analysis" stuff is bunk. Someone is BS'ing..

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146418)

You have millions of data points from a ton of sensors (over 200, I think it's closer to 450), the time isn't in making copies, the time is going to be plugging all that data into the simulators at Airbus and seeing what the data points to.

Airbus, Air France, the German, American, French and British investigators get copies and they run the sims too.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36146430)

This is kind of silly. Ok, maybe the first capturing of the data is important, but subsequent copies are trivial.

And I'm sure they have software they can plug it all into that will show exactly what the plane was doing through the entire incident. This "weeks of analysis" stuff is bunk. Someone is BS'ing..

Maybe they want to avoid releasing anything to prevent speculation by amateur investigators being reported in the media as based on facts?

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146464)

you do realize they not only look at the data, but at the binary position of each bit stored to determine it's authenticity.

The raw stored data while containing the story is checked for anomalies just as careful as the story itself.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146054)

On a sidenote: If there is only 2 hours of voice recording, why will it take weeks to listen to it?

Obviously you can't have the whole investigation team shorting Airbus stock right away, that would be too obvious; you need time for some "regularly scheduled transactions".

On a more serious note, there is 2 hours of voice recording plus lots of instrument data. Better to go through it thoroughly and recover everything you can rather than immediately issue a report just to satiate the curiosity of the public. I mean, it isn't like there is a rush - what are the chances that another [reuters.com] A330 might fall out of the sky in the mean time? Hmm, maybe I should be shorting Rolls-Royce stock instead of Airbus...(Yeah, sorry, I got silly again for a minute there.)

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36146296)

Obviously you can't have the whole investigation team shorting Airbus stock right away, that would be too obvious; you need time for some "regularly scheduled transactions".

On a more serious note, there is 2 hours of voice recording plus lots of instrument data. Better to go through it thoroughly and recover everything you can rather than immediately issue a report just to satiate the curiosity of the public. I mean, it isn't like there is a rush - what are the chances that another [reuters.com] A330 might fall out of the sky in the mean time? Hmm, maybe I should be shorting Rolls-Royce stock instead of Airbus...(Yeah, sorry, I got silly again for a minute there.)

Well, to be fair. Engine failures happen all the time albeit the one you found was slightly worse than usual if firefighters had to douse it. The day after the spectacular A380 engine explosion a Qantas 747 had an engine fire and had to return to LAX but few people outside the aviation community cared about it (I'm a jetphotos.net regular and even there, it drowned in the discussion about the A380). And that too was a Rolls-Royce :)

Since engine issues aren't all that rare (despite what the stakeholders say), safety requirements are pretty strict: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j973645y5AA

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36146568)

The bulk will probably be spent on the FDR data. The bus protocol used for FDR is 12 bit words at 64,128, 256, and 512 words per second with 256 probably the most common. Data as integers needs to be converted, individual boolean bits need to be separated, and for the duration fo the flight. Given the infrequency of needing to analyze the data on the FDR and that there are many many configurations of this data, it may be more manually intensive than one would think.

Also they will be analyzing the CVR for any kind of background noises for any indication of equipment failure which would take many passes through the audio.

Or it may be obvious from the beginning, but either way they will make sure everything is put together into a clear picture before they release their findings.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36151032)

I predict that the last word on the CVR will be Merde.

The audio is the easy part (1)

static416 (1002522) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146592)

I work as an aerospace engineer and we use similar methods during design testing. It's not just cockpit audio that is recorded, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of parameters from systems all over the aircraft. To be honest, the audio may not even be that useful, if it happened fast enough there is a good chance the pilots didn't even know what was going on.

To go through 100,000 variables and prove beyond reasonable doubt that a specific variable directly caused the crash will probably take far more than week. They are likely aiming to just narrow it down to a certain system within that timeframe.

To give context, I recently spent a month trying to narrow down the cause of a failure in a high fidelity engine simulation. And that was a single system that we had the luxury of knowing everything about, and had the ability to rerun the exact situation repeatedly and tune various parameters to determine a cause. Even then the cause is never any single thing, it's often a huge cascading series of minor deviations from the norm leading to an unforeseen combination of events.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146668)

Most likely the investigators will not be listening to it like most people listen to a news broadcast. They will repeatedly be going over every second of the voice recording analyzing every pop, hiss, bang, etc. They will be analyzing what the pilots are saying and how they are saying it. (Are they stressed? Are they relaxed?). They will also been matching the audio track with the data track in terms of timeline and looking for any clues that the verbal or nonverbal sounds can provide. i.e. At 1:34:42, the data records that the pilots tried to pull the plane up while the voice records what may be considered grunting. Are the pilots exerting themselves in trying to control the plane? If so, what would cause the controls to fail like that? During the entire time, the investigators have to document everything including a transcript of events.

Every little clue may help in determining the final cause. In Continental Flight 3407, investigators thought they heard yawning from both pilots during the flight. The co-pilot had commuted from Seattle to Newark the night before possibly getting as little as 4 hours of sleep and appeared to be under the weather. In the end, the crash was attributed to pilot error brought on by a number of factors including poor pilot training, fatigue, etc. It also brought the issue of the long distances that some pilots have to commute in order to do their jobs.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36148426)

Most likely the investigators will not be listening to it like most people listen to a news broadcast. They will repeatedly be going over every second of the voice recording analyzing every pop, hiss, bang, etc.

For this flight, the flight data is the crucial issue. It's known from the maintenance telemetry that there were some system failures prior to the accident. The data from the aircraft systems is the big issue. It's non-trivial to analyze. Often, especially on newer aircraft where there's a lot of data, the data can be converted into a format that can be loaded into an aircraft simulator, allowing investigators to replay the accident. That was done with the aircraft that landed in the Hudson River.

The cockpit voice recorder is secondary for a loss-of-control accident like this. (In contrast, the voice data is most important for a "controlled flight into terrain" accident, where the airplane was working just fine until it hit something.) The NTSC routinely publishes transcripts of such recordings, and Flying magazine reprints some of them in their Aftermath column.

If you've never seen a full NTSB accident report, here's one. [ntsb.gov]

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153120)

I don't doubt that the flight data is important; however, in an accident all evidence should be analyzed in great detail. The voice should at least confirm the data. It is theorized the airspeed tubes got clogged with ice and caused all sorts of problems. The voice track should have audible alarms that match the data.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36150896)

I find your excess of faith... disturbing

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36146768)

why will it take weeks to listen to it?

There is a lot at stake: Airbus liability. Air France liability. French prestige.

They're going to take their time. They will concoct the best possible spin and then selectively release the most exonerating parts first among as much publicity as they can assemble. This must be managed with the utmost care and discretion.

It will be years before frozen pitot tubes are finally determined to be the cause. The blame will be assigned to the pitot manufacturer, the dead pilot, an act of god, and the US, because everything is our fault.

btw, there were blood stains in the hotel room where Strauss-Kahn jumped the maid. The rape kit found his DNA on her as well.

vive la France, stupid ricains.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146952)

as i understood it from another article, it's 2 hours of cockpit voice and the entire flight worth of flight system data. I'd imagine it's the latter that will take the time to analyze.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36148114)

its all in making sure that the data can be proven to be forensically valid.

that and getting 2 Catholic Priests 2 Protestant Ministers
2 Rabbis 2 Muslim Iams? and 2 Wiccans in a room that won't fight is a bit hard to do.

they not only have to plug all the data in from all the sensors they have to be able to prove somebody didn't find the recorder mess with it and then dump it back on the ocean.

Re:Yey for solid-state memory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36148126)

Although you were probably joking:
Only one track is audio, the rest is telemetry. Attitude, altitude, commands to control surfaces, etc

In before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36145304)

I don't know anything about aviation, black boxes, water corrosion in deep waters and data recovery but it's clear using my inexistant knowledge on the matter recovering readable black boxes is impossible therefore it's clearly a conspiracy from french authorities (with the help from the illuminatis and the aliens) to protect Airbus and Air France from future lawsuits.

Re:In before (1)

fregare (923563) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145400)

I think it's the aliens myself. Now which aliens and from what planet, ocean, parallel universe or whatever are they from?

Slashdot web site is designed like shit. I wish there was a competitor.

But we already know the cause of the crash. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145414)

transcript summary (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145424)

Pilots talk about cheese, the flight attendants ass for 1:59, strange voice yells "alluhu ackbar", tape ends.

So I guess we'll never know what happened!

Re:transcript summary (2)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145706)

Pilots talk about cheese, the flight attendants ass for 1:59, strange voice yells "alluhu ackbar", tape ends.

So I guess we'll never know what happened!

It was a trap!

Re:transcript summary (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36151040)

Maybe the co-pilot kept deflating despite the best efforts of the captain to keep him upright.

hymenology council; worst crimes are sex crimes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36145524)

or anything at all to continue the madness&mayhem death by deception etc... chosen ones' holycost.

disarm. weapons, media, vaccines, zeus weapon etc... then life will find a way.

Cause of the crash? (1)

jnaujok (804613) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145848)

The same as for almost every airplane crash -- gravity.

Re:Cause of the crash? (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36148294)

Many crashes are due to Controlled Flight into Terrain [flightsafety.org] , not gravity.

Re:Cause of the crash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36149920)

Gravity is necessary -- without it, there'd be no air pressure and air wouldn't act like a fluid -- and you'd have no aerodynamic lift.

If you're going to blame fundamental forces, I think electromagnetism is to blame (specifically the electrostatic force which prevents solid objects from moving through each other).

Except you need that for lift too. Hmm.

WHERE ARE THE EASY ANSWERS?!

Pretty amazing tech (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36145884)

Impact Shock 3400G, 6.5 milliseconds
Penetration Resistance 500 lb. weight from 10 feet
Static Crush 5000 lbs., 5 minutes
High Temperature Fire 1100 C, 30 minutes
Low Temperature Fire 260 C, 10 hours
Deep Sea Pressure and 20,000 feet, 30 days
Sea Water/Fluids Immersion Per ED-56a
The CSMU design has been fully qualified to these requirements and, in fact, exceeds them by considerable margin in key survival areas:
Impact shock has been successfully demonstrated at 4800 G's
High temperature fire exposure has been tested to 60 minutes
Low temperature fire was tested immediately after exposure to 1100 C fire.

From here [scribd.com] . Check out the physical design on page 8.

Re:Pretty amazing tech (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36147516)

And Hulk Hogan whacked it with a folding chair a few times for good measure.

Re:Pretty amazing tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36148782)

Can it withstand Chuck Norris?

Re:Pretty amazing tech (1)

EricWright (16803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36152918)

Deep Sea Pressure and 20,000 feet, 30 days

I think they can up their estimated duration by an order of magnitude now...

I wonder if NOVA got it right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36145926)

It will be very interesting to see if the conclusions of the data recorder analysis are anything like the conclusions of the team that NOVA put together. Their conclusion, with visual scan of the wreckage, weather data, and ACARS data, was that all three pitot tubes became blocked with supercooled water, which then quickly froze. The pilots didn't know their airspeed, and didn't follow procedure to maintain safe speed by pitch and power alone.

Re:I wonder if NOVA got it right. (5, Interesting)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146182)

This was a very interesting documentary [pbs.org] . I was particularly interested in the inferences about the user interface approach of Airbus versus Boeing. In short, Airbus planes are controlled with joysticks that translate pilot intentions into actual executable commands to the control surfaces. If the pilot tells the computer to do something stupid, the computer won't do it. Contrast this with Boeing, where the pilots control the plane with a proper control stick that gives more effective feedback to the pilots. In a Boeing airplane, when the computer lowers engine power on autopilot, the engine control lever actually moves in a very visible way. However, on Airbus planes, the levers DO NOT move. The only indication to a pilot that the power has dropped is a small circular readout on a computer screen. The Nova scientists theorized that the pilots didn't realize that the computer had lowered power in anticipation of flying through a thunderstorm, or at least that they realized it too late. They theorize that for about a minute the pilots were flying the plane as if the engines were on high power, when they were actually on a much lower power setting. This, combined with a lack of reliable airspeed data may have caused the pilots to put the plane in an unrecoverable mode of flight. Or maybe it was different. We will know soon enough.

BTW, for those of you outside the US, the above video link won't work. I think the video is on bittorrent somewhere. It is definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it.

Re:I wonder if NOVA got it right. (1)

orangepeel (114557) | more than 3 years ago | (#36148696)

BTW, for those of you outside the US, the above video link won't work.

I have a friend in Canada who, at least in the recent past with some alternate PBS shows, has been able to view video directly from the PBS site. So ... Canadians may at least want to give that link a try. (And I'd be interested to hear if it does end up working for anyone there.)

Troubling (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#36151804)

If there is a fundamental flaw in the Airbus system, will this invesitgation be allowed to air it to the public? Or will the incestuous goverment ownership / regulation relationship result in a public statement of 'inconclusive' while the flaws (one would pray) are fixed very, very quietly so as not to disturb current and future Airbus sales.

To be fair, I'm not sure such a scenario would be impossible w.r.t. the FAA and Boeing too.

Re:I wonder if NOVA got it right. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36151898)

I think you (or the documentary) misunderstood the Airbus design. On their aircraft the throttle is to set the desired thrust, a bit like setting cruse control in your car to a given speed which it then tries to match. Even on a Boeing aircraft the pilot should never use the position of the sticks to indicate thrust levels because if an engine is failing it might not be producing the requested amount. Therefore on both aircraft the readout of actual measured levels is the only reliable indication.

The problem with the Boeing system is that if the pilots exceeds design limits and the aircraft will let them. A number of accidents have occurred because the pilot did something they should not have and the Airbus system is supposed to prevent that. If you look at how many accidents could have been prevented by such a system in the past you can see why they did it. There are of course backups that bypass the limits in the event of the aircraft being damaged or the computer systems failing.

Re:I wonder if NOVA got it right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36146352)

There was a recall of the particular brand of pitot tube used on the doomed flight shortly after the crash. I guess somebody already concurs with the NOVA conclusions.

Wouldn't be the first time blocked pitot-static system brought down airliners (always at night when the pilots are SOL for visual references).

You would think with proper training (inertial, GPS, radar, ..), the pilots should still be able to bring the aircraft to area where visual flight rule is possible.

Re:I wonder if NOVA got it right. (2)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146602)

the pilots should still be able to bring the aircraft to area where visual flight rule is possible.

The pilots should be able to fly the plane without airspeed data, according to the Nova documentary. They just set the engine to a particular level and maintain a particular angle of attack. The Nova documentary speculated that due to a variety of factors and distractions that the pilots were unaware of the actual power settings of the airplane. Apparently the airspeed/angle of attack window is quite narrow at that altitude, and if the plane deviates from that window, the airplane may become uncontrollable. It may have taken a brief oversight of the power settings to bring down the plane. Sort of pilot error, perhaps. But there were definitely mitigating factors.

Re:I wonder if NOVA got it right. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36152490)

My gf used to do rescue operations in the military for downed aircraft. In one situation the plane was flying upside down and the pilot rammed the aircraft into the ground thinking he was going up at night as he did not know up from down.

I do not know if the sensors which show orientation were functioning properly or not as they are probably unrelated to the ones that froze up. My opinion is an electrical fault shorted the instruments as data from the flight show this.

This could of created haywire on the computer and instruments in the cockpit. One witness claimed he saw the aircraft fly down sparkling in pieces and fire. Most of the plane is intact on the floor with the exception of the cockpit. The storm was terrible and the plane was getting hit with lightning multiple times and everything from ice to the sensors to perhaps the wings of the plane as well. The thunderheads were over 50,000 feet which is very rare. The whole situation is bad and I wonder why the pilots didn't fly around these storms?

Need the blackbox company to make the plane (1)

Timmy D Programmer (704067) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146076)

Seems the one part that you can rely on.

Re:Need the blackbox company to make the plane (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146394)

Steven Wright agrees.

Re:Need the blackbox company to make the plane (1)

Ichijo (607641) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146738)

And the occupants. Otherwise, they will wind up as a big unrecognizable pile of meat in the forward section of the cabin. Remember the Mythbusters episode [wikipedia.org] about the body of the diver getting compressed into his own helmet?

Re:Need the blackbox company to make the plane (1)

jstheriault (136211) | more than 3 years ago | (#36147352)

We have those, they're called ships.

Re:Need the blackbox company to make the plane (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#36151510)

Seems the one part that you can rely on.

It can definitely done, but it will be too heavy to fly.

The fox watching the hen house . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36146160)

I have been following AF447 in detail since it went down. Interesting that the French government., BAE, is investigating a crash involving it's national airline, Air France in a plane made by Airbus, a company 20% owned by the French government. Who do you think will be left holding the bag on that one? Le Figaro is already circulating rumors that the CVR/DFR point to crew error. This fits with the old axiom of air incident investigation that says that if the pilot dies, the cause was pilot error.

Re:The fox watching the hen house . . . (1)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146332)

From the telemetry data that I've hear of from the PBS Nova documentary, it seems highly likely that the pitots failed nearly simultaneously, robbing the pilots of airspeed data. Even if they can argue that the pilots could have saved the plane, those pitots should never have failed/froze. There is blame to go around I think.

Data can be misleading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36146534)

One of the major hypotheses about the cause of this crash is a sensor problem.

Getting the data out of the chips is only the first step. Then a timeline has to be
put together, and "interesting" readings, if any, called out and their significance
understood.

Likely as not, nothing will jump out, especially if, say, the autopilot is flying the
aircraft using faulty input, e.g., input from an ice-covered sensor. That is likely
to cause other sensors to show perverse readings that may (or may not) be very
subtle, and may have multiple or ambiguous causes. This may be complicated
by any number of other issues and/or failures.

Once a first pass has been made on putting this all together, the investigators
will almost certainly spend a great deal of time resolving issues and bullet-proofing
their conclusions, if any.

Then again, it may all be resolved right away if the sensor readings are unambiguous,
but the investigators will still spend the time ensuring all the i's are dotted and the
t's crossed in their conclusions.

Finally, I'll note that these recorders traditionally use proprietary recording schemes,
and the air data recorders in particular (generally the more useful) require a good
understanding of the aircraft whose data is recorded. Usually the boxes are sent
to the airframe manufacturer, and the analysis is done there, along with whatever
civil government air-safety personnel are required (e.g., NTSB personnel in the U.S.).

Re:Data can be misleading... (2)

catchblue22 (1004569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36146692)

Likely as not, nothing will jump out, especially if, say, the autopilot is flying the aircraft using faulty input, e.g., input from an ice-covered sensor. That is likely to cause other sensors to show perverse readings that may (or may not) be very subtle, and may have multiple or ambiguous causes.

Perhaps, but what will be very interesting is the data on the power settings on the airplane, especially in regard to (a) the autopilot reducing power to 70% in anticipation of passing through a thunderstorm and (b) the pilot's changing of that setting to a more appropriate level. The key question is whether or not the autopilot lowered the power before kicking off due to bad airspeed data, and whether or not (and when!) the pilots realized that the power was lower and what they did in response. That goes to the heart of the speculated cause of this crash, according to the Nova episode on the subject.

Re:Data can be misleading... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36147340)

I skimmed through some of the data that was sent through the air, and assuming the time stamps are right, there were inconsistencies that made me suspect some sort of fire in avionics (possibly due to Kapton insulation). Of course, if the time stamps were based on when the data was transmitted rather than when the event occurred, then it's useless, and I withdraw that theory.

I'm certainly interested to see what comes out of all of this, either way.

It's readable and it says (1)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36147366)

"It's not our fault!" Signed, Airbus

Prediction (1)

DougF (1117261) | more than 3 years ago | (#36147762)

Last words: "Oh shit..." (or equivalent in French)

Re:Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36148270)

zut alors?

Re:Prediction (1)

spinlight (1152137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36148800)

c’est plutôt con!

Re:Prediction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36149284)

Last words: "What is it doing now?"

Re:Prediction (1)

weeboo0104 (644849) | more than 3 years ago | (#36153412)

Sacre Bleu! Merde!

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36149164)

"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"?!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?