So everyone will sit around, whinging and whining and waiting for ‘the government’ to ‘do something’? Ain’t gonna happen, because it could be inconvenient and embarrassing.
If the ATSB did retrieve the OBR equipment and announced: “The OBR information does not provide a substantial basis on which to change the conclusions of our Report”, what then? Who’d believe it?
As I’ve said, if I’d been the PIC I’d have had the boxes out long ago.
Nobody’s actually identified the legal impediment to retrieval, or why that impediment is insurmountable.
If there’s an allegation of ‘tampering’ by a ‘private’ recovery team, so what? If the raw CVR recording were published and reviewed against the estimated timings of events like ground radio transmissions and ditching, I reckon a bunch of professional pilots would be able to judge whether bits were missing or added ex post facto.
I’d like to see someone convince the CDPP that it’s in the public interest to prosecute someone for doing the ATSB’s job for it, by retrieving the OBR equipment and using the information on it for the purpose for which it is fitted.
The only outcomes could be:
1. No information retrievable from the OBR equipment. Status quo re the Report's conclusions, but lingering criticism of ATSB for not retrieving the equipment sooner.
2. Information retrievable from the OBR equipment supports the conclusions of the Report, or does not cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions. Status quo re the Report's conclusions, but ATSB looks better.
3. Information retrievable from the OBR equipment suggests or shows that the timing and content of weather forecasts and reports provided to NGA provided a misleading view of the prevailing and likely weather conditions on arrival at NFI. ATSB looks worse, but the OBRs have served their one and only purpose.