Originally Posted by
Basil
The CVR and FDR are for accident investigation and ONLY for accident investigation.
I would hope that pilot unions across the World would threaten strike action if they are used for anything else. (Yes I know they have been)
Would anyone who works in an office permit their every move and comment to be recorded and possibly used against them by their company or the courts? Can you imagine the screams of outrage?
We, magnanimously, permitted CVR and FDR to assist accident investigation and to avoid repeating errors; not for greedy litigation!
If a CVR is for "accident investigation" only, is Basil saying this was not an accident, i.e. it was deliberate?
Or is he saying that CVRs are only relevant to incidents involving metal being bent, not simply passengers?
In the UA case there is a probability that the airline and its servants (and that includes the captain) may have acted illegally, not simply committing a civil tort, and consequently a passenger was injured. What is the difference between this situation and an illegal event taking place in the air, or indeed taxiing on the field? Surely the line must be drawn once a passenger is on board and under the safety of the captain? Or does Basil think that the captain is not responsible when the plane is still at the gate? Surely not. It is the captain who, for example, would have to manage an evacuation in the event of a fire caused by refuelling whilst the aircraft is still on the ramp, and presumably that is why the captain tells us to keep our seat belts unfastened during refuellling....
Basil, the buck starts when the SLF are on board. Thus the CVR contents start being relevant at the same time in my book.