Is this the beginning of a new conspiracy theory? On 11 January, the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board stated that both the CVR and FDR had stopped recording four minutes before the aircraft crashed.[79]

Why would the flight recorder stop recording after the bird strike? Don't they have backup battery for flight recorders? Ohanian (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean JeJu Air Flight 2216? Stanleykswong (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, flight 2216 not 2219. I have updated the title. Ohanian (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says on wikipedia that "With the reduced power requirements of solid-state recorders, it is now practical to incorporate a battery in the units, so that recording can continue until flight termination, even if the aircraft electrical system fails. ". So how can the CVR stop recording the pilot's voices??? Ohanian (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft type was launched in 1994, this particular aircraft entered service in 2009. It may have had an older type of recorder.

I too am puzzled by some aspects of this crash, but I'm sure the investigators will enlighten us when they're ready. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this briefly, it sounds like an independent power supply for the CVR (generally called a Recorder Independent Power Supply/RIPS) was only mandated for aircraft manufacturer from 2010 in the US [1] [2]. I doubt anyone else required them before. [3] So not particularly surprising if this aircraft didn't have one. I think, but am not sure, that even in the US older aircraft aren't required to be retrofitted with these newer recorders. (See e.g. [4] [5] [6].) In fact, the only regulator I could find with such a mandate is the Canadian one and that isn't until 2026 at the earliest [7]. Of course even if the FAA did require it, it's a moot point unless it was required for any aircraft flying to the US and this aircraft was flying to the US. I doubt it was required in South Korea given that it doesn't seem to be required in that many other places. There is a lot of confusing discussion about what the backup system if any on this aircraft would have been like [8] [9] [10]. The most I gathered from these discussions is that because the aircraft was such an old design where nearly everything was mechanical, a backup power supply wasn't particularly important in its design. The only expert commentary in RS I could find was in Reuters [11] "a former transport ministry accident investigator, said the discovery of the missing data from the budget airline's Boeing 737-800 jet's crucial final minutes was surprising and suggests all power, including backup, may have been cut, which is rare." Note that the RIPS only have to work for 10 minutes, I think the timeline of this suggests power should not have been lost for 10 minutes at the 4 minutes point, but it's not something I looked in to. BTW, I think this is sort of explained in some of the other sources but if not see [12]. Having a RIPS is a little more complicated than just having a box with a battery. There's no point recording nothing so you need to ensure that the RIPS is connected to/powering mics in the cabin. Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft made 13 flights in 48 hours, meaning less than 3.7 hours per flight. Is it too much? Its last flight from Bangkok to Korea had a normal flight time for slightly more than 5 hours. Does it mean the pilots had to rush through preflight checks? Stanleykswong (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With this kind of schedule, it is questionable that the aircraft is well-maintained. Stanleykswong (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to be obsessed with creating a new conspiracy theory out of very little real information, and even less expertise. Perhaps a new hobby is in order? DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info, the article is Jeju Air Flight 2216. This question has not yet been raised at the Talk page there. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...nor should it be, per WP:TALK. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's quite a critical aspect in the investigation of the accident. Not sure it's some kind of "conspiracy", however. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I suggest it should only be raised if, and to the extent that, it is mentioned in Reliable sources, not OR speculated about by/in the Wikipedia article or (at length) the Talk page. On the Talk page it might be appropriate to ask if there are Reliable sources discussing it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.29.20 (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have now posed the question there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any site where one can view complete Fortune 500 and Fortune Global 500 for free? These indices are so widely used so is there such a site? --40bus (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the complete list here: https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/ Stanleykswong (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]