Originally Posted by
vapilot2004
most of the raw transducer anomalies are filtered before they get to any exterior data bus.
Or the instruments, as per design.
On to the public release - the mere act of taking those fiddled numbers and placing them on a chart is once again a manipulation of the raw data. Subtle, and mostly innocuous, but the movement away from fidelity is incontrovertible and obvious to those who have seen the raw traces.
The numbers aren't "fiddled". Filtered, maybe - but no more so than is normal for this kind of process and certainly not due to direct human intervention.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
To me, It is not necessary to accuse anyone of anything. The report and its genesis are self explanatory. Without the fullness of the Data, in its entirety, the report is misleading beginning on its face page.
In which case every accident report ever published is, by your standards, "misleading" - as they are based on data sets no more precise than those supplied here and do not include a full dump of the FDR data as a matter of course.
It is a "managed" document, apparently satisfactory for most, and dissatisfying for some....
Same as for most accident reports. For example, the Spanish report on the 1977 Tenerife disaster was very unsatisfactory to the Dutch investigators, yet the veracity of that report is rarely, if ever, questioned.
It is the height of injustice to not allow them to be heard in the arena of fairness, by experts who can use discretion and somber reflection, toward a result of added wisdom.
So why are you not demanding the same for other accidents?
I do not wish to hear it. I wish for some neutral and wise party to judge and report what happened. BEA does not qualify in that regard.
Why does the BEA not qualify? Neutrality is in their charter!