Originally Posted by
Graybeard
I just want to repeat that documentary was rubbish. Just reading the pilot's guide for the Wx radar on 447 would have given them real info about the radar capabilities. Instead, they went off on an ill-founded theory about the "storm behind the storm."
Read what I said carefully. I'm not saying that's what happened to AF447, but if that situation is a possibility then "Avoid all thunderstorms - period" becomes insufficient advice. What do you do about the thunderstorm you can't see?
Originally Posted by
jcjeant
I disagree about this
The note released it's just some fragments of the CVR record.
Unless the CVR had recording problems ... we can't tell the BEA released all the information provided by the CVR
This is why all those posts trying to fill the gaps open by this incomplete release.
If I quote one of your message incompletely .. you will complain of context .. ♫♪la la la♪♫
Same for a incomplete BEA release ....
Not really - a full CVR transcript is also out of context without an FDR record to explain what was happening in conjunction with the statements recorded by the CVR. What they've released is what they could determine by matching up portions of the CVR data with what they have extracted (and processed) from the FDR so far.
Case in point - I remember an accident described in the "Black Box" book* that accompanied the C4 series of the same name in 1996. The investigators in that case released CVR data where the pilots were complaining of being tired - this got picked up by the press and the accident was written up as fatigue-induced pilot error. Another angle they were working at the time was that the altimeter fitted to the aircraft in question was known to occasionally misread by up to 1,000 ft and there was plenty of evidence that this had indeed happened. As such, they recommended replacing that model of altimeter, but because public perception had already accepted the "fatigue" explanation, the regulator wasn't interested.
This is about the fifth time I've asked this question and I've yet to get an answer - why are there demands for raw data being made of the BEA in this instance from some quarters on this forum, when to my memory no such demands have ever been made of the NTSB or AAIB?
@RR_NDB : I note that when journalistic "tittle-tattle", as it applies to piloting and aircraft operations, is brought up on here it tends to be treated with the scorn it deserves, except in very exceptional circumstances. Why should press hearsay about the motivations of the BEA and the French government be any different? [EDIT : Just had a quick squiz on Google, and as far as I can see the "Paris Air Show" connection was made at the end of a paragraph in a Flight International article, and all that said was that the timing of the discovery "could have come out of a film script" - no connection to the possible release of information to protect Airbus or Air France has been made outside of the speculation on this forum.]
* - The book was heavily oversimplified and wasn't really all that - but my local Waterstone's was getting rid of it for 2 quid...