Dozy, llagonne66, thank you for your responses. My goal is education and learning.
In my view, flight data is "neutral" in its character.
One must go where the data leads and so your observation regarding the "irony of data" is correct; - the door of "proof" (for one theory or another of "causation"), swings both ways. In data, there is no guarantee of congeniality or favour. It is what it is, within stated limitations.
One cannot obtain and view the data with preconceptions as to how it will/should/may go. It may just go precisely where, "to one's surprise/disappointment/chagrin/delight, (name it), one wants/does not want, it to go".
Such prior conceptions certainly aren't about flight safety work, which this capturing of flight data enterprise is wholly and uniquely intended to support.
To put it in unmistakable terms, if one is seeking proof for one's theories rather than understanding of what occurred (within the limitations of the flight data process as described above), flight data is "Door #1, Door #2, or Door #3".
The foundations of this approach to flight data work regarding protections and the clear requirement for confidentiality as well as the requirement for caution in terms of reaching conclusions, should be abundantly clear.
Last edited by PJ2; 16th Jul 2013 at 17:19.