Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
vapilot: given that most raw data needs a bit of interpretation, should we toss into the bin, then, all FDR based analysis, deliberation, and conclusion? (I doubt you feel that way.)
When it comes to data, most of the major bureaus and boards only publish enough data to illustrate their focused areas of concern, leaving out the obvious unneeded stuff, which is perfectly fine, but also omitting that which fails to support their thesis - not unlike the modus operandi of a criminal defense attorney or a skilled prosecutor. Although looked down upon in the scientific world, it remains a common practice even within these trusted agencies. Blame it on pride, human nature, or whatever you desire. Some are better at 'full disclosure' than others, and history has taught me that within the same agency (NTSB) some investigations are more thorough and forthcoming than others.
Does the BEA's analysis not achieve the "good enough" standard in this investigation?
Since the AF447 readouts are unpublished and remain under lock and key - unobtainable even to those parties on the inside with a vested interest in the investigation - and what was published was cherry-picked, I can't say whether the BEA's analysis was good or bad. What I can say is there are a multitude of unpublished areas, both temporal and in selected data channel, that everyone should be able to examine in order to better understand what the aircraft was doing, what the automatics were doing, and what the pilots saw on their instrument displays.