I've read somewhere that actual incidents or accidents are the best sources of inputs for improvement in safety systems and even larger upgrades in system architecture - and even more so where the incident did not result in significant property damage or loss of life, but accurately is categorized as "way too close for comfort." So, piling on to the CVR discourse . . .
At ICAO's Second High-Level Safety Conference (Feb. 2-5, 2015), one of the topics was Safety Information Protection (Topic 2.2); and Working Paper 4 was presented, "Balancing the use and protection of safety information" (HLSC/15-WP/4, ICAO Secretariat:
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/HLSC20...ingPapers.aspx).
Question: was the discussion in Feb. 2015 the most recent gathering of its type on these issues, or has something as "high-level" and inclusive of a broad (possibly comprehensive) range of industry viewpoints, taken place since that time? (The WP may not mention CVR intricacies in direct fashion but - unless I missed the boat - the need for such data, the issues of crew worries over airline management pin-headedness, and so on, are clearly the framework for the WP and the Topic 2.2 overall.)
Separate question. What would your typical line pilot, experienced grizzled drivers and so on, react with, if a law firm sprung up, quite suddenly, ready, willing, and more than merely able, to stop pin-headed airline management in its tracks in courtrooms anywhere where courtrooms exist, when pinheads try to micro-manage pilot safety decisions based on FOQA and CVR data? The present state of affairs is unsatisfactory - looking for logjam breakers - saddlin' up some hard-headed litigators in the model of Melvin Belli-crossed with-Julius Lucius Eccles just might redress the balance. Not a criticism of existing airline pilot union counsel; just asking about adding to their bench, so to speak.