Air India AI171 crash: What's a black box and why is it important?

After a Gatwick-bound Air India plane(AI171) with 242 people onboard crashed minutes after takeoff from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport today, the search for the flight's black box continues, which is crucial equipment to find out what happened moments before the disaster.
A black box is a small machine that records information about an aircraft during its flight. This bright orange or yellow rectangular box is crafted to withstand explosions, fire, water pressure, and high-speed crashes. Discovered by Australian scientist David Warren, it is used to discover the cause of a plane crash.
The black box also comprises two recorders, a cockpit voice recorder for pilot voices and cockpit sounds, and a separate flight data recorder.
The black box recording of the Air India plane can reveal the underlying reason or responses of the Mayday call, or any warnings received by the aircraft, hence contributing to the discovery of the main cause of the crash.
The AI171 Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed at an altitude of just 625 feet today. The black box can shed light on vital information such as parameters of the engine performance and control surface positions amid others.
A black box comprises four main parts, including,
*an interface designed to fix the device and facilitate recording and playback
* an underwater locator beacon
* the core housing or 'Crash Survivable Memory Unit' made of stainless steel or titanium, which is designed to withstand a force equivalent to 3,400 times the force of gravity
* The recording chip on a circuit board.
The investigation of the 2020 Kozhikode plane crash of the Air India Express Flight 1344 was heavily dependent on the aircraft's black box recordings, which revealed that it was due to a pilot error.
The 2015 Germanwings crash was another incident which was investigated using the plane's black box recordings.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

17 hours ago

• First Post

Will humans go extinct if people stopped having babies?

In many countries, women are having fewer babies than their previous generations. As birth rates fall, how long will it take for humans to vanish if people do not reproduce anymore? read more Very few people live beyond a century. So, if no one had babies anymore, there would probably be no humans left on Earth within 100 years. But first, the population would shrink as older folks died and no one was being born. Even if all births were to suddenly cease, this decline would start slowly. Eventually there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed. As an anthropology professor who has spent his career studying human behaviour, biology and cultures, I readily admit that this would not be a pretty picture. Eventually, civilisation would crumble. It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive. A catastrophe in the making To be sure, an abrupt halt in births is highly unlikely unless there's a global catastrophe. Here's one potential scenario, which writer Kurt Vonnegut explored in his novel 'Galapagos': A highly contagious disease could render all people of reproductive age infertile – meaning that no one would be capable of having babies anymore. Another possibility might be a nuclear war that no one survives – a topic that's been explored in many scary movies and books. A lot of these works are science fiction involving a lot of space travel. Others seek to predict a less fanciful Earth-bound future where people can no longer reproduce easily, causing collective despair and the loss of personal freedom for those who are capable of having babies. Two of my favourite books along these lines are ' The Handmaid's Tale,' by Canadian writer Margaret Atwood, and ' The Children of Men,' by British writer PD James. They are dystopian stories, meaning that they take place in an unpleasant future with a great deal of human suffering and disorder. And both have become the basis of television series and movies. In the 1960s and 1970s, many people also worried that there would be too many people on Earth, which would cause different kinds of catastrophes. Those scenarios also became the focus of dystopian books and movies. Population to touch 10 billion To be sure, the number of people in the world is still growing, even though the pace of that growth has slowed down. Experts who study population changes predict that the total will peak at 10 billion in the 2080s, up from 8 billion today and 4 billion in 1974. The US population currently stands at 342 million. That's about 200 million more people than were here when I was born in the 1930s. This is a lot of people, but both worldwide and in the US these numbers could gradually fall if more people die than are born. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD About 3.6 million babies were born in the US in 2024, down from 4.1 million in 2004. Meanwhile, about 3.3 million people died in 2022, up from 2.4 million 20 years earlier. The population will peak at 10 billion in the 2080s. Pixabay/Representational Image One thing that will be important as these patterns change is whether there's a manageable balance between young people and older people. That's because the young often are the engine of society. They tend to be the ones to implement new ideas and produce everything we use. Also, many older people need help from younger people with basic activities, like cooking and getting dressed. And a wide range of jobs are more appropriate for people under 65 rather than those who have reached the typical age for retirement. Falling fertility rates In many countries, women are having fewer children throughout their reproductive lives than used to be the case. That reduction is the most stark in several countries, including India and South Korea. The declines in birth rates occurring today are largely caused by people choosing not to have any children or as many as their parents did. That kind of population decline can be kept manageable through immigration from other countries, but cultural and political concerns often stop that from happening. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At the same time, many men are becoming less able to father children due to fertility problems. If that situation gets much worse, it could contribute to a steep decline in population. Will humans go extinct? Our species, Homo sapiens, has been around for at least 200,000 years. That's a long time, but like all animals on Earth we are at risk of becoming extinct. Consider what happened to the Neanderthals, a close relative of Homo sapiens. They first appeared at least 400,000 years ago. Our modern human ancestors overlapped for a while with the Neanderthals, who gradually declined to become extinct about 40,000 years ago. Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals. If humans were to go extinct, it could open up opportunities for other animals to flourish on Earth. On the other hand, it would be sad for humans to go away because we would lose all of the great achievements people have made, including in the arts and science. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In my view, we need to take certain steps to ensure that we have a long future on our own planet. These include controlling climate change and avoiding wars. Also, we need to appreciate the fact that having a wide array of animals and plants makes the planet healthy for all creatures, including our own species. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Business Standard

19 hours ago

• Business Standard

Dark energy discovery changed understanding of universe: Nobel laureate

Dark matter pulls the universe and dark energy pushes, both mysteries that endure. And the discovery that a majority of the universe is made up of stuff that makes gravity push rather than pull was a gamechanger, says Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt. The US-born Australian astronomer along with Adam Riess and Saul Perlmutter from the US discovered the stuff, later termed dark energy, in 1998. The three won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011. Explaining the significance of their discovery that changed the understanding of how the universe functions, Schmidt told PTI, "Dark energy is really saying (that) there is energy tied to space itself. If we didn't have dark energy, the universe would be curved and the universe wouldn't accelerate -- and that changes how cosmic objects, such as galaxies, looks. It really makes a difference," the astronomer, who was visiting Ashoka University for the Lodha Genius Programme, added. The term dark energy is intentionally similar to dark matter. Dark matter refers to particles in the universe that hold galaxies and other structures in space (the cosmos) together. It is said to have peculiar properties, such as being invisible, as it does not interact with light. However, while "dark matter and atoms (that make up ordinary matter) are pulling the universe, dark energy is pushing the universe. There's a balance at any given time of who's winning the war -- dark energy has won the war, it seems now and is pushing the universe apart", Schmidt explained. That's because dark energy had a density set at the time of the Big Bang, said the 58-year-old former president of the Australian National University and currently a distinguished professor of astronomy. The Big Bang, believed to have given birth to the universe, happened some 13.8 billion years ago. Dark matter is among the particles formed immediately after the event, gravity exerted from which is said to produce a slowing effect on the universe's evolution. "And (dark energy) stayed at that density. But as the universe expanded, and the density of atoms and dark matter dropped over time, the two crossed about 6.5 billion years back -- and that crossing meant the dark energy could take over and accelerate the universe," Schmidt said. Work on the discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and that dark energy is the driving force began in 1994. Schmidt and colleagues intended to look at distant objects and measure how fast the universe was expanding in the past, and then look at nearer objects to see how it slowed down over time. "And if we measured the universe slowing down really quickly, then we'd know that the universe was heavy and you're gonna get a Gnab Gib -- the Big Bang in reverse. But if the universe was slowing down slowly, then we'd know the universe is light and it's gonna exist forever. So that's what we were going to do." Three and a half years later came the answer. What we saw was the universe was expanding slower in the past and it sped up. So instead of slowing down, it's actually the other way -- it's speeding up," the Nobel laureate said. In 1917, physicist Albert Einstein first imagined dark energy as a concept -- only he did not think of it in those exact words but instead accounted for it in his equations of general relativity as a 'lambda' term. Einstein is said to have considered the lambda term irrelevant, even denouncing it as his greatest blunder. "When we made our discovery of the acceleration (of the universe), it was the only sensible way of making it happen. So that thing (the lambda term), that he (Einstein) brought in 1917 and then later discarded as being irrelevant, that seems to (be validated from) what we discovered," Schmidt continued. "In 1998, cosmology was shaken at its foundations as two research teams presented their findings...," states the press release dated October 4, 2011, announcing the recipients for the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2011. The 1998 model has since been scrutinised through experiments, mainly aimed at understanding the nature of dark energy -- is it constant or does it vary? "We put in some extra knobs in the model of 1998, where we allow dark energy to change over time. The models with the most recent data seem to prefer a dark energy that changes," Schmidt said. But he is sceptical. "I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying I need better data to be convinced they're right. He said he is also glad that someone else is working on it. Schmidt leads the 'SkyMapper Telescope Project' for which he conducted a survey of the southern sky as seen from Australia, focussed on looking at the "oldest, first stars in the galaxy". "We could see essentially what the chemistry of the universe was back really close to the Big Bang -- because if a star was formed right after the Big Bang, it's made up of the stuff that was in the universe at the time. "And so, we found the most chemically pure stars that have ever been discovered, ones that were almost certainly not formed from the remnants of the Big Bang, but from a single exploding star after the Big Bang. That just gives us a sense of what the first stars look like," said Schmidt, who has published his findings in several journals, including Nature. Schmidt, who addressed high schoolers and others on science as a potential career at the university, advised them to get the skills that seem useful for life by working on something that interests them. Not knowing what to do in life and the fact that he enjoyed astronomy made Schmidt pursue the field. "In learning astronomy, I'd learned math, I'd learned physics, I'd learned computing, I'd learned some engineering. And (while) I didn't think it was likely that I would get a job to be an astronomer, I knew math, engineering, physics, and computing liable to give me a good job doing something. And of course, I did end up being an astronomer," he said. "You don't really know how all of this is going to come together in your life, but if you work on something you're interested in, with a set of skills that seem useful for life, then don't overthink your life, don't overplan your life," Schmidt said.

Time of India

a day ago

• Time of India

Push and pull: Dark energy discovery changed understanding of universe, says Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt

Dark matter pulls the universe and dark energy pushes, both mysteries that endure. And the discovery that a majority of the universe is made up of "stuff" that makes gravity push rather than pull was a gamechanger, says Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt . The US-born Australian astronomer along with Adam Riess and Saul Perlmutter from the US discovered the "stuff", later termed dark energy, in 1998. The three won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011. Explaining the significance of their discovery that changed the understanding of how the universe functions, Schmidt told PTI, "Dark energy is really saying (that) there is energy tied to space itself." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play this game for 3 minutes, if you own a mouse Undo "If we didn't have dark energy, the universe would be curved and the universe wouldn't accelerate -- and that changes how cosmic objects, such as galaxies, looks. It really makes a difference," the astronomer, who was visiting Ashoka University for the Lodha Genius Programme, added. The term dark energy is intentionally similar to dark matter. Live Events Dark matter refers to particles in the universe that hold galaxies and other structures in space (the cosmos) together. It is said to have peculiar properties, such as being invisible, as it does not interact with light. However, while "dark matter and atoms (that make up ordinary matter) are pulling the universe, dark energy is pushing the universe. There's a balance at any given time of who's winning the war -- dark energy has won the war, it seems now and is pushing the universe apart", Schmidt explained. That's because dark energy had a density set at the time of the Big Bang , said the 58-year-old former president of the Australian National University and currently a distinguished professor of astronomy. The Big Bang, believed to have given birth to the universe, happened some 13.8 billion years ago. Dark matter is among the particles formed immediately after the event, gravity exerted from which is said to produce a slowing effect on the universe's evolution. "And (dark energy) stayed at that density. But as the universe expanded, and the density of atoms and dark matter dropped over time, the two crossed about 6.5 billion years back -- and that crossing meant the dark energy could take over and accelerate the universe," Schmidt said. Work on the discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and that dark energy is the driving force began in 1994. Schmidt and colleagues intended to look at distant objects and measure how fast the universe was expanding in the past, and then look at nearer objects to see how it slowed down over time. "And if we measured the universe slowing down really quickly, then we'd know that the universe was heavy and you're gonna get a Gnab Gib -- the Big Bang in reverse. But if the universe was slowing down slowly, then we'd know the universe is light and it's gonna exist forever. So that's what we were going to do." Three and a half years later came the answer. "What we saw was the universe was expanding slower in the past and it sped up. So instead of slowing down, it's actually the other way -- it's speeding up," the Nobel laureate said. In 1917, physicist Albert Einstein first imagined dark energy as a concept -- only he did not think of it in those exact words but instead accounted for it in his equations of general relativity as a 'lambda' term. Einstein is said to have considered the lambda term irrelevant, even denouncing it as his "greatest blunder". "When we made our discovery of the acceleration (of the universe), it was the only sensible way of making it happen. So that thing (the lambda term), that he (Einstein) brought in 1917 and then later discarded as being irrelevant, that seems to (be validated from) what we discovered," Schmidt continued. "In 1998, cosmology was shaken at its foundations as two research teams presented their findings...," states the press release dated October 4, 2011, announcing the recipients for the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2011. The 1998 model has since been scrutinised through experiments, mainly aimed at understanding the nature of dark energy -- is it constant or does it vary? "We put in some extra knobs in the model of 1998, where we allow dark energy to change over time. The models with the most recent data seem to prefer a dark energy that changes," Schmidt said. But he is sceptical. "I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying I need better data to be convinced they're right." He said he is also glad that someone else is working on it. Schmidt leads the ' SkyMapper Telescope Project ' for which he conducted a survey of the southern sky as seen from Australia, focussed on looking at the "oldest, first stars in the galaxy". "We could see essentially what the chemistry of the universe was back really close to the Big Bang -- because if a star was formed right after the Big Bang, it's made up of the stuff that was in the universe at the time. "And so, we found the most chemically pure stars that have ever been discovered, ones that were almost certainly not formed from the remnants of the Big Bang, but from a single exploding star after the Big Bang. That just gives us a sense of what the first stars look like," said Schmidt, who has published his findings in several journals, including Nature. Schmidt, who addressed high schoolers and others on science as a potential career at the university, advised them to get the skills that seem useful for life by working on something that interests them. Not knowing what to do in life and the fact that he enjoyed astronomy made Schmidt pursue the field. "In learning astronomy, I'd learned math, I'd learned physics, I'd learned computing, I'd learned some engineering. And (while) I didn't think it was likely that I would get a job to be an astronomer, I knew math, engineering, physics, and computing liable to give me a good job doing something. And of course, I did end up being an astronomer," he said. "You don't really know how all of this is going to come together in your life, but if you work on something you're interested in, with a set of skills that seem useful for life, then don't overthink your life, don't overplan your life," Schmidt said.