That's not the difficult part. As A33Zab says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A33Zab 
And we need a monks lifetime to decode the 300+ mandatory parameters into a readable format for the ones who cannot read the - RAW - 12 bit Harvard BiPhase Code.
The data is stored in a machine-orientated format that must be converted, then cross-checked by hand to
ensure accuracy. We're talking serious man-hours for even 10 minutes of the 300-odd mandatory parameters, let alone the full 1,300 (approx.). Call me kooky, but I'd need some serious evidence that the published data was doubtful before even considering diverting resources into that effort.
As a member of the lay public, I see no such evidence - perhaps those calling for this would care to provide some?
If reading the flight data is so nebulus then why are some airlines routinely using it to monitor performance of all pilots (FOQA)?
What about the flight data is inaccurate?