AA Flight 93 cockpit recording [Archive]

Tin Kicker

17th Apr 2002, 18:24

Listen to the flight recorders here:

American flight 11 CVR (http://www.transcript.com/wtc/flights/aa11)

United Airlines flight 93 CVR (http://www.transcript.com/wtc/flights/ua93)

Just MHO but as long as "the public", as they are often dismissively called here, are paying to fly with airlines and trusting their lives to us, and until pilot error is completely eliminated as a contributory element in accidents then I think that they damn well have a right to know.

By all means protect our irrelevant personal comments in the cockpit - the technology exists to do that. But I personally think the idea that we're due a Godgiven right to secrecy when we're given responsibility for people's lives is b*llsh!t. What have you got to hide? If you want secrecy go to Singapore. And incidentally if you clicked the links above (surprise) then ask yourself why - and I'm sorry but "I'm a pilot" isn't good enough.

Capt Pit Bull

17th Apr 2002, 18:57

What about the history of these things. CVRs are there for accident investigation, and are accepted by the pilot workforce largely because of assurances that these details are not used in criminal proceding against the crew or released to the general public.

We know why these aircraft crashed. I'd also support criminal investigators attempting to gather evidence or intelligence against the terrorists. But thats as far as it goes.

Tin Kicker, your point is well made. However, its not as though we are the only people holding others lives in our hands, or making safety critical decisions.

But by logical extension, I will accept that any individual can have CVR details of my flight, if and only if they agree to carry a recorder of all their work activities and allow me access to that.

For example, I might reasonably expect to see a transcript of all the design meetings of the engineers who designed the aircraft I fly, or the company trainers when they discuss the changes to operating procedures, or CAA staff discussing regulatory changes, or intelligence agencies assessments of terrorist threats, etc etc..

As per usual, the cockpit is perceived to be the place where accidents are caused, and as such the centre of interest for the public. And yet we all know that the cockpit just happens to be the place where the final link in the safety chain breaks.

If the general public is really interested, then they need to go and get a scientific, technical and operational education about airliners. Say by getting a pilots licence, at which point they might actually understand what was on the transcript.

Anything else in just sensationalism.

CPB

GlueBall

17th Apr 2002, 19:01

If you are troubled by CVR tapes going public, then be careful of what you say. Any accident involving death, injury or substantial property damage will involve insurance litigation and wrongful death lawsuits in a court of law. Court proceedings are in the public domain, so are NTSB reports. CVR data, including sounds other than conversations, are an intregal part in establishing an accident sequence.

And soon to follow are high tech cockpit cameras which will record not the pilots's faces, but the instrument panel, glareshield, overhead and pedestal views.

The object is to learn why airplanes crash and how to prevent recurrence. With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in property damage and wrongful death lawsuits, the flying public has a right to know why airplanes crash, whether mechanical, pilot, or controller error. Therefore, the cockpits of $100+ Million Dollar jets are necessarily not "private offices."

RadarContact

17th Apr 2002, 19:49

Just MHO but as long as "the public", as they are often dismissively called here, are paying to fly with airlines and trusting their lives to us, and until pilot error is completely eliminated as a contributory element in accidents then I think that they damn well have a right to know.

The object is to learn why airplanes crash and how to prevent recurrence. With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in property damage and wrongful death lawsuits, the flying public has a right to know why airplanes crash, whether mechanical, pilot, or controller error.

And listening to the last minutes of the cockpit crew trying to handle the situation and to prevent the, from our side of things, inevitable gives "the public" the knowledge of what exactly caused the event, right? :rolleyes:

As stated above, this is pure sensationalism, the term not even coming close to what I would call it. There are trained experts to gather the little facts and pieces that eventually come together as the whole picture. I don't see where making the CVR recordings public helps anyone in doing that...

Would you like half the country listening intimately to your last minutes? (not that you would care much at that point..., granted)

Tin Kicker

17th Apr 2002, 20:17

:rolleyes:

No, I daresay the public won't be able to piece together what happened. It's not their job -- although I know that there are members of "the public" who are a damn sight more perceptive and intelligent than you might imagine.

I'm simply arguing that things shouldn't be kept secret. That way you can't claim to the public, which is already nervous enough about flying, that you're hiding anything.

Make the truth accessible and people will see it, then lose interest. Keep it hidden and the rumours will take over -- and even if the truth finally comes out, no-one will believe it. No-one wonders who killed Lincoln. Everyone wonders who killed JFK.

If I'm flying an aircraft I'm not doing passengers a favour. I'm taking responsibility for their safety. I think people have a right to know about my actions in their proper context. If I was flying Air China next week you can bet your @rse that I'd want to hear the CVR.

Incidentally, I notice on the Air China 767 thread that someone appears to have 'inside information' on corporate pressure, but somehow thinks they're performing a service by haughtily telling journalists not to bother enquiring. Talk about giving the impression of a cover-up. Talk about giving a bloodhound the first whiff of a scent.

If I'm considered responsible enough to be given command of a $100m jet and 200 people then I should also be mature enough to accept that I'm accountable to everyone who is thinking of getting on board a commercial aircraft. And I shouldn't be whinging about CVR tapes as though I'm part of some privileged society club member.

Carnage Matey!

17th Apr 2002, 20:42

What a load of rubbish Tin Kicker. If the public want to know what caused the accident then they can access the edited transcript of the recordings, but my voice is my business and they've no more right to hear it than they have to hear my conversations down the pub. They can have the pertinent facts and thats all. The CVR tapes should not be released as the purpose of this is to satisfy the ghoulish voyeurism of the public and the networks clamour for ratings. Perhaps you expect to be given a tour of ground zero just so you can be sure what really caused the tragedy? Or maybe you want to check out an execution close up, just to make sure that murderer's really fried! Thats in the public interest isn't it? The only right the public have is to an explanation of the accident, not the grizzly details of someones last moments in full stereo glory for their own entertainment.:mad:

Max Angle

17th Apr 2002, 21:43

Carnage Matey!,

Well put sir. CVR was introduced to aid in accident investigation and for no other reason. If the families want to hear them then I would just about go along with that, although it's not why the tapes where made. If the public want to hear them, then tough, they should not be allowed to. People nowadays moan on about "everyone has the right to......." and "it's my right to see....." and so on and so on. Everyone nowadays seems to have a right to everything, well you havn't, some things are still private and confidential and CVR tapes should be one of them.

Tin Kicker

17th Apr 2002, 22:27

You're right, Carnage. What could I have been thinking?

(i) When I'm in the pub I have the same responsibility to the travelling public as I have when I'm in the cockpit. The scenarios are, of course, perfectly comparable in every sense. My mistake.

(ii) You're absolutely correct. I should have known instinctively what happened at the WTC...you and everyone else were obviously imparted with divine knowledge on the whys and wherefores. Alas, I wasn't so gifted and had to rely on being shown via TV. I'm reassured to know that you stood your moral non-voyeuristic ground by refusing to watch any of it. That goes for the JFK assissination footage, the Holocaust evidence, every CVR recording ever made public, car accident caught on camera...etc...etc...you're a stronger man than I, Gunga Din.

(iii) The public have a right to an explanation to an accident, but don't need to hear/see any evidence for themselves. I agree completely. After all, when you've professional investigators taking charge (like the Egyptian CAA or the Silk Air team) there's certainly no need to worry about their version of events.

(iv) Edited transcripts and the printed word are perfectly adequate for putting over timing, context and meaning. Nice emoticon you've got there, by the way.

As for you Max Angle...you'd "just about" go along with the relatives being let in on it? Well how decent of you old chap. I'm sure if you were every unfortunate enough to find yourself responsible for an accident, the families would be forever indebted to your act of generosity. I personally wouldn't. If your "private and confidential" actions had caused one of my loved ones to suffer, I'd want the whole world to know what you were doing and why.

Carnage Matey!

17th Apr 2002, 22:38

Initial reports of the content of the tape alluded to the hijackers retreating to the flight deck and barricading themselves in when the passengers revolted. They also alluded to the hijackers arguing amongst themselves before what was interpreted as a decision to crash the aircraft. Given the scenario of a noisy 757 flight deck, a heated exchange between hijackers, a thick flight deck door and the pounding upon said door, it would seem unlikely that discernible individual voices would be detected by a single cockpit area microphone, which is probably all they had in the flight deck. If this is the case then allowing the families to listen to the tape is pointless. If it is not the case and voices can be discerned then I'm sure the highly skilled CVR experts of the NTSB, backed up by linguistics experts, would be in a much better position to analyse the tapes and reveal the information stored upon them. In the extremely unlikely event that a family member was required to identify the voice they can be played excerpts of the tape with non-pertinent sounds filtered out. I may be wrong but I don't see how the families will be helped by listening to a noisy flight deck, hijackers shouting in arabic, a thudding door, lots of engine noise and GPWS warnings.

I don't know much at all about the legal system of the USA but I believe in the UK it's is possible for judges to order that evidence presented in court is not reported by the media. Perhaps this part of the evidence could be presented in a closed court? Its also possible that a transcript could be provided and only excerpts pertinent to the prosecution and defence cases could be played. There's more than one way to skin a cat and I suspect the various legal teams could make there points without replaying the whole unedited tapes to the nation.

As for your points tin kicker

1) My voice is still my business, nobody elses. Transcripts will suffice. If you've argued with your wife that morning does that mean they should have a recording of that? What if thats what caused your heart attack which started the chain of events? Your key word was trusting. You are trusted to fly the aircraft. The accident investigators are trusted to reveal the truth to the best of their understanding (and the NTSB do). Thats how the system works. Or perhaps you would like all the passengers to sit on the flight deck just to make sure you don't mess it up? Remember CVRs are only in place because we trust that they won't be aired on TV. If you're so big on trust, next time I fly with you I ask that you reel off the contents of your medicine cabinet, just in case there's something prohibited in there that might impair your performance and jeopardise my safety. Its my right.

2) I heard all about Sept 11th on a crackly BBC radio and believed it, even though the information was unclear and nobody really knew what was happening. I also saw the White House being blown up by a giant UFO on TV, but that was just a film and I didn't believe that. Airing the tapes will not reduce the speculation, conspiracy theories or 'cover-up' claims. Those who chose to believe will believe, those who don't won't. Few, if any, minds will be changed, little will be gained but many will be distressed. A pointless exercise. I don't need to hear a recording to tell me that 4 suspiscious arabs were on board that plane and it crashed, I can draw my own conclusions.

3) The investigation bodies are independent, if you don't trust their interpretation, hire your own expert witness. If the police hold DNA evidence against you do you want to analyse it personally, or would you get an expert? I'll wager you don't speak arabic, none of the jurors speak arabic (or they wouldn't be on the jury) and the judge won't speak arabic. Only the expert witnesses will understand the tape, only they should listen to it. You're not the judge, it's none of your damn business.

4) I'm glad you agree with me. Edited transcripts and the printed word are perfectly adequate for putting over timing, content and meaning. Ever see the NTSBs video reconstructions of the 737 hardover incidents? They were animated videos showing the aircraft flight path, control inputs, cockpit instrument data with subtitles of the CVR recordings. Ideal for the job. I refer you to point 3. Unless you speak arabic, the CVR will only reveal timing, some content and a hotly disputed interpretation of meaning. Thats an interpretation you can't make, so why your need to hear them? Nice sarcasm you've got there by the way.

Raas767

18th Apr 2002, 05:53

I can't believe what I am reading here! Airline pilots actually advocating the publics right to listen to aircrew performing thier duties just prior to death! Unbelievable!
In the U.S. we have something called "The freedom of Information Act". Unless it is classified as secret by the Government there is access to the information. Like someone said before, if you dig for it you will find the transcript but under NO circumstances should CVR conversations be aired to the public because, if nothing else, it does not serve a purpose. The reason for CVR and FDR is for accident investigation. PERIOD.
Anything else is pure sensationalism weather it's 911 or SR 111.

N380UA

18th Apr 2002, 07:06

Carnage Matey!

I wholeheartedly, absolutely agree with all of your points. Under normal circumstances; But these are not! We investigate such accidents to - 1. bring closure to the relatives and friends of those that passed away. – 2. to further improve the safety and quality of air travel. On both occasions, the public at large does not need to be confronted with the details, a summary of the results and if applicable any actions to prevent such incident should be enough information.

However in this case the scope is reaching much further than in any other case ever - it’s global. Not just the United States has felt the impact but for the first time in the history of NATO, the 5th amendment has been called into effect calling an attack on one – an attack on all. Now a coalition force is in Afghanistan (again in the news today, Canadian troops killed due to friendly fire). International Navies are patrolling the Arabian Sea and Air forces are flying sorties a half a world away. As it seems today, it won’t get any better for another while.

In the meantime though, I would like to know exactly what exactly my friends and countryman are fighting for. “Fight global terrorism” - I know! But that is too superficial, I want intelligence, I want to know who the enemy is and how he does what he does. (Whoever the enemy might be in consideration of all of the conspiracy theories.)

Again Carnage, I’d agree with you any other time but this calls for a more open and global view of the events of September 11. Therefore, I’d say yes, I’d like to hear the tapes or at lease have an unedited written transcript.

RadarContact

18th Apr 2002, 10:12

So now it's "I need to know all the facts, what they did, said, what they had for breakfast and what underwear they were wearing so that I can fully and heartily agree to my country's military forces taking action against the terrorists of this world..."

Yeah, it's your f.... right!

Just to prevent most of the inevitable responses to this: Yes, that was very upfront, and certainly not of best style...

But where do some people gain the implicitness of having a right to anything?

... 10 mins and a cup of coffee later ...

by Tin Kicker(iii) The public have a right to an explanation to an accident, but don't need to hear/see any evidence for themselves. I agree completely. After all, when you've professional investigators taking charge (like the Egyptian CAA or the Silk Air team) there's certainly no need to worry about their version of events.

I deny noone the access to the truth given by a source they can trust. I do deny people's (and I include myself here) access to the raw data, where it compromises the personal rights of privacy of those involved.
For this there are institutions and authorities that have been put in charge by your representatives.

Regarding the allegation of feeling somehow "elite". Yes, we are an elite! Not in the way you mean it, perhaps. But very few people are so closely looked upon, so regularly examined regarding their capabilities and skills, and so closely monitored by everybody and their neighbour who fancy to give their comment to every action we do.
Are there any CVR's in public buses? In trains (don't know here, honestly)? On cruisers (probably yes, coming to think of it...)?

CVR's were originaly meant to:
a) facilitate incident/accident analysis
b) enable designers to re-evaluate their concepts of the working environment
c) be used as a source for constant improvement of skills (learning from other's mistakes)

Recently, this list has received some additions:

d) Try to blame the pilots (come on, they MUST have said something suspicious)
e) satisfy the morbid interests of many and therefore the media
f) ... on second thought, I don't want to continue at this point...

stagger

18th Apr 2002, 10:51

Raas767

I can't believe what I am reading here! Airline pilots actually advocating the publics right to listen to aircrew performing thier duties just prior to death! Unbelievable!
As I wrote before this case is very unusual - it's not about the public's right to listen to "aircrew performing thier duties just prior to death." It seems likely that final minutes of the tape contain the voices of, not the aircrew, but the hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft and perhaps also the voices of the passengers who tried to regain control from them. It's a unique situation.

If it is to be used in the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui then it may very well have to enter the public domain in the courtroom. The hijackers may very well say things that could be used to establish that he was indeed a co-conspirator.

This is not a case of the CVR tape being used to discipline or prosecute aircrew so I don't think its use in open court would set a dangerous precedent.
The reason for CVR and FDR is for accident investigation. PERIOD.

I know this is unlikely but what if the CVR in this case was absolutely crucial for the succesful prosecution of Moussaoui?

N380UA

18th Apr 2002, 13:40

Radar my friend, don’t let yourself be caught with your pants down.

Be it pro or con to this subject, one ought to be able to have a critical look at it.

BTW, no problems with being up front and straight.

If a country is being attack then it should defend it self, if a country is being attack and in part, relies on others to fight the war for it, I must say that a critical look at the situation is justified.
To pre-empt any confusion, I am not afraid to stand up to terror or any other form of threat, and please don’t confuse crowdedness with pacifism.

It has nothing to do with their underwear and I couldn’t care less if they had a cup of regular or decaf for breakfast. What I do want to know – rightfully so me think - is the total picture of the situation. It is no longer a question of commitment to fight terror (nor should that ever be), we are far beyond that. Of course, a swift reaction was necessary as well, BUT as I alluded to earlier, the world, who has committed it self in fight against terror, must know all the details as they become available. After all, we call it a war! So please let me have all the details of reasoning any justification to call this a war.

Again, no professional member here wants to second guess what the “real” flight crew did nor are any other CVR’s of interest other then already mentioned. And I don’t think that people have any morbid desires to listen to the plane going down.

Raas767

18th Apr 2002, 13:41

Stagger.
That Zacharias guy will fry anyway. We shouldn't let the camels head in to the tent on this issue. Someone will allways say that "this accident is special" so we need to air the tapes. No way.
I'm sticcking to my guns on this one.

Carnage Matey!

18th Apr 2002, 18:07

I hear what you're saying N308UA, but I disagree that the disclosure of these tapes is necessary to proceed with the 'war on terror'. Referring to my second post, nobody is really going to learn much from the tapes unless they speak arabic. What could the public release of the tapes possibly add to the US or world goverments plans in the war against terror? I think there's more than enough evidence in the public domain to point the finger without revealing this distressing information. I simply don't believe the public need the information or have a right to it. The USA managed to get through two world wars and a cold war without feeeling the need to release classified information to satisfy public curiousity. I'd suggest that the war against terrorism, whilst important today, is insignificant in comparison to those three eras and no justification for changing that policy.

RadarContact

18th Apr 2002, 22:20

And I don’t think that people have any morbid desires to listen to the plane going down.
You'd be amazed... :(

N380UA

19th Apr 2002, 06:31

Carnage Matey!

I didn’t mean to imply that the disclosure of the tape is necessary to continue to the war on terrorism. Also, I don’t think that the Governments, especially the US need to proclaim a reason to attack anyone. I also agree with you that such distressing information does not need to be aired on the tele, however it should be available to those how wish to hear it. In addition, it is essential for history to have a compleat picture of events. In 30-40 years when most have forgotten what has transpired in the morning hours of September 11th 2001 we should be able to tell our grandchildren the entire story with all its background.

RadarContact

I stand corrected. Although somewhat sad but your right I guess.
:(

Iron City

19th Apr 2002, 13:31

Question: Who owns the flight data recorders and CVRs? NTSB and similar organizations are supposed to get the data, but who owns the raw data and the bent,burnt bits? I believe there are provisions in the US regulations that require the owners of this material to provide it to NTSB, FAA and similar authorities for accident investigation purposes. And that is it for a regular accident. Though I am not a lawyer, I do not believe that in a regular accident the "public" has any right to have access to the raw data. I believe the case could be made that the transcripts, filtered, edited, and otherwise manipulated data are property of the investigating organizations and would possibly come under Freedom of Information Act, but even if that is so the government still has the intelectual property rights to this material and it can't just be published without permission.

In the case of AA93 there is reasonable cause to believe that something criminal happened. (No S!) Since that is the case the FBI and other law enforcement agencies get into things and the CVR and FDR media are evidence in a criminal investigation of hijacking and capital murder, and being in on either of these has a death penalty in this country. For this purpose I believe the law enforcement agencies ( this is just in US of A) are allowed to confiscate the material and keep it for use as evidence when or if somebody is prosecuted. The key here is they get to keep it for use as evidence, not to play at the policemen's ball or whatever other things they might want to do with it. The evidence is given to the US Attorney's office. In the case of the Algerian guy the case is being done in the US Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, I think. The US Attorney represents the federal government in this court. Federal rules of evidence apply and the defense is supposed to get the same evidence information. The court will decide what and whether information will be allowed outside the courtroom. This is the same court where FBI and CIA traitors were prosecuted, so they know how to do this. Nobody, including the US Attorney, is allowed to give out information that the court has sealed and the Eastern District of VA, home of the Rocket Docket, is one court you don't want to mess with because you will be thrown in prison for contempt and kept there at the court's pleasure and there will not be a thing you can do about it.

And we haven't talked about civil suits yet.

As a practical matter it looks like some recordings will be played in some cases when there is a lot of public interest (not necessarily in the public interest) I do not believe that furthers aviation safety and certainly has nothing to do with criminal prosecution or even the facts of a civil case. It just infects the jury pool with preconceived notions and make it harder to get a good jury.

I for one will not listen to the recordings, the transcripts of applicable parts will be sufficient and believe anyone in the general public who is "just curious" and has "a right to know" (fed by Journos of course) is a very sick puppy and needs to seek professional help.

PaperTiger

19th Apr 2002, 18:11

What could the public release of the tapes possibly add to the US or world goverments plans in the war against terror?It keeps or re-establishes the justification in the public eye. Appalling as Sept. 11th was, memories dim for those not directly affected. Was it just coincidence that this same week, NBC aired a special about the USS Stennis (good show BTW) including Tom Brokaw going feet dry in the back of a Tomcat ? It's happened before, a number of seemingly separate news items/TV shows/interviews within a few days of each other. Although I'd hesitate to call it propaganda, I do think there's some spin going on here.

Agree that actual audio CVR should not be released. The only time it added anything was the notorious Palm 90 'onff' checklist response. And all that did was illustrate that nobody could tell what was really said.

waterops

20th Apr 2002, 08:40

I agree with Carnage. And Virgin on his comments re the hit/replies ratio.

Tin Kicker almost appears to be from a very litiginous society indeed or possibly has a brother/sister-in-law who is an ambulance-chasing lawyer.

Please pull your head out of your as$ and have a think about the history if litigation that prevails these days. Do you really believe CVR tapes, once allowed beyond the realms of the NTSB or other safety board, would not be pursued as Exhibit 'A' in the inevitable legal case that follows any aviation accident/incident?

CVR tapes are for safety functions only. The rest of the world, the press, and, unfortunately the relatives will have to just wonder what was said and wait for the report like the rest of us. If it was my relative (God forbid), I would still feel the same way. Anyone who has had the isfortune to hear this sort of CVR material would know that it can be very unpleasant, to say the very least. It usually bears little rememblance to its portrayal by Hollywood.

You want CVR tapes publicly availabe? I'm glad you speak only for yourself.

timmcat

20th Apr 2002, 21:52

Danny, has'nt this gone far enough?

Ignition Override

23rd Apr 2002, 03:55

There should be no liberalisation of the regulations which could require CVRs and flight datas recorders (the orange/red boxes, so called "black boxes") to be accessible to the public. None whatsoever! This was a very bad precedent, whether legal or not.

The media is thinking: "But just imagine what it could do to our CBS, BBC, SudDeutsche Funk...etc ratings on the 5:30 news!" Like when tv station WCCO years ago in Minneapolis (US) broadcast a tilted photo of a 727 (appeared to be in a steep dive) inflight for an article on questionable airline maintenence. Perfect material for a "ratings sweep".

What if someone in the audience among the family members of the crash in PA had hidden a tape recorder and released it later anonymously to the media for a chung of cash?

The family could have asked the NTSB or FBI for a good description of what the AA Flight 93 CVR consisted of and realized how grim the cockpit struggle was, as the plane was in a fatal decending spiral or out of control.

And as for ambulance chasers-too bad that there was no way years ago to close all of the US law schools for a few years in order to reduce the numbers of some of the excess lawyers in this land of litigation.

Covenant

23rd Apr 2002, 18:06

Some of you seem to be advocating the availability of un-edited CVR transcripts but not the actual raw data. In terms of privacy (which I understand is the most important - or at least most passionately argued reason), what is the difference?

It sounds to me like you understandably don't want to be the object of Joe Public's morbid curiosity. Well, you have my sympathy, but it strikes me as a bit like p***ing in the wind.

Alpha Leader

24th Apr 2002, 00:30

Seems we ought to rename this thread "Hypocrisy", judging by the number of posts along the lines of "nobody should ever doubt our professionalism, but don't let anyone check it out".

Carnage Matey!

24th Apr 2002, 00:41

You're more than happy to check out my professionalism any time. You can verify with the CAA that my licence is valid, you can verify with my employer that my sim checks and route checks have been to an acceptable standard. I have no qualms about getting calls from the union and explaining myself if one of my (continuously-monitored) flights has exceeded any one of the several hundred parameters constantly monitored. I wouldn't complain about accident investigators reporting my inputs to the controls and their consequences, the absence of alcohol or narcotics in my blood post incident, my flight recency and recent hours, the words I uttered relevant to the conduct of the flight or the outcome of such words. The level of my professionalism is not established by playing my voice on TV to an audience who do not understand my job, solely for their amusement and tittilation.

lomapaseo

24th Apr 2002, 00:58

Well stated Carnage Matey!

"The level of my professionalism is not established by playing my voice on TV to an audience who do not understand my job, solely for their amusement and tittilation."

I would also like to add (as one who has listened to numerous accident CVRs), that the "proffesionalism may not even be established by single non-expert laypeople even without the purpose of tittiliation and amusement.

It takes a team of peers to even begin to make judgements in this regard.

IMO, the 93 CVR issue started out as grief closure on curiosity. I can not see it being credibly extended beyond that by the laypeople involved.

Alpha Leader

24th Apr 2002, 04:08

Perhaps a little bit of economic realism would not hurt either. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and if I am not entirely off the rails, it's the passengers who pay directly and the taxpayers who pay indirectly (does post-911 bail-out sound familiar to anyone in this forum)?

There is thus every justification for passengers and the public at large to hear/read these transcripts.

Once you fly for free you can tell the public where to go.

N380UA

24th Apr 2002, 05:47

Alpha is quite right. So is lomapaseo and Carnage in the regard of the “level of my professionalism”. I must be reiterated, that the point is not to check on the original flight crew of AA93 but to understand what had transpired on the flight deck that sad day. As I have mentioned earlier, if the tape is made public I wouldn’t mind to hear it, however much more important is that we, the public get at least the transcript of the CRV. As Alpha said, look who is footing the bill, not just in our industry securing our jobs but also in the fight against terror securing our lives.

MidnightSpecial

24th Apr 2002, 17:56

Think that lurid and sensational journalism is an inappropriate venue for cockpit tapes? Last summer, transcripts of accidents were used for entertainment.

A theatre in New York rehashes accidents with the transcripts. People are making money off pilots' last words.

The only positive turn I heard about this was that airline executives attended a performance and got a better feel for what we do. However they are management and aren't paid to care about how we feel.

As far as I'm concerned only pilots should have access to tapes or transcripts.

MidnightSpecial

Tin Kicker

24th Apr 2002, 19:05

Any pilot from Silk Air or Egyptair want to chip in at this point? :rolleyes:

Incidentally there seems to be a disturbing lack of respect for the intellect of the general public here. I don't remember the academic qualifications for becoming a pilot being particularly high -- minimum a handful of 'O' and a couple of 'A' levels, degree not necessary. The spelling on this forum is apalling much of the time, makes me wonder how many pilots barely scraped through English.

Goes to show that you don't have to be Einstein to do this job. Just remember that the difference between a pilot and the general public is simply that we've been taught how to fly an aircraft. And sorry to pop your egos, some of you, but while it's a skilled job it's not rocket science. There's plenty of far finer minds out there easily capable of understanding our job and of working things out more quickly and efficiently than some of us will ever be. I no longer wonder why pilots attract the label of being arrogant.

greatorex

24th Apr 2002, 22:51

Tin Kicker:

No offence, but as you brought up the subject of spelling; 'Apalling' is actually spelt: Appalling.

In the meantime, I do agree with what you say about us not being 'rocket scientists' but we all worked damned hard to get where we are. I certainly don't think that pilots are arrogant; when you see the number of out-of-work ATPL's out there, driving minicabs, fitting double-glazing, working behind bars and, if they're really, really lucky scraping a few pounds together PPL instructing, you realise that pilots know an awful lot more about humility than most people realise and that us with jobs are not 'arrogant', just plain lucky to remain employed in the current climate.

Carnage Matey!

25th Apr 2002, 00:16

I pay taxes (and a hell of a lot of them too). My goverment spends that money on defence and intelligence to make me feel safe. Does that give me a right to access any information they have in order that I might feel safer or more comfortable. No, it doesn't. At least not until at least fifty years or so have passed and everyone involved is dead. Tin kicker and Alpha Leader clearly belong to the "me me me!" culture, where anything is defensible as long as someone feels better for it or things they have a right to it. Well they're wrong. If the travelling public want to fly, they play by our rules. If it says no smoking and you want to smoke, tough. If it says phones are banned and you want to phone, tough. If CVRs are for accident investigation purposes only and you want to listen to them, tough. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't fly. I don't believe for one moment the travelling public would stop flying if we said at check in "In order to travel today you must accept that in the billion to one chance of an accident your access to the CVR will be restricted transcripts and not raw data". Get real people.

As for this ludicrous assertion that we think the public are thick in some way, the you're wrong. I don't. I know lots of intelligent people, lawyers, financiers, teachers, I even know a bona fide brain surgeon. One thing they have in common is that they know jack schitt about flying, just as I know very little about tort, MBOs, pedagogy or neurosurgery. I don't claim to be smart enough to undersatand or criticise their performance, and they don't pretend to know what the hell I'm talking about. That just leaves the people who think they're intelligent enough to know what I do, but aren't smart enough to realise they don't. I'm damned if they're gonna have the tapes just to satisfy their curiousity. You might as well post it to The Sun and let White Van Man have his say.

N380UA

25th Apr 2002, 06:47

Tin Kicker

In addition to greatorex comments let me add that a bunch of the arrogant flying altered egos out there have a degree – this one included. And to take it a step further, English is often not the first language of many visitors to this forum, in my case it’s the fourth. Shall we keep this up or go back to the topic?

Carnage

“I pay taxes (and a hell of a lot of them too). My government spends that money on defence and intelligence to make me feel safe.” Feel safe? You want to feel safe or you want to be safe?

Do you really want to believe all that the government is telling you? “We must launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Australia (no offence intended down over there) Why hell yea! Where’s the button?”

Common Carnage, as you said your self your smart enough to see the difference here. I’m sure there are some sick minded people out for a cheap thrill but the, majority want to understand what has happened – that’s all. Be it as it may, there are clearly two sides. For the one it’s no information at all and for the other its every little detail. Perhaps we could find some compromise on the subject.

Alpha Leader

25th Apr 2002, 06:55

Carnage Matey:

I'm hardly a believer let alone follower of the "me, me, me" culture, as you so delicately put it. Suggesting that your cockpit conversations should be treated at the same level as national security does, however, seem to indicate that you hold an inappropriately high opinion of yourself - but you can always seek professional help for these sort of things.

Whether or not all members of the public are able to draw educated conclusions from a CVR transcript is, of course, debatable. We know that not even so-called experts can do so unambiguously (as Tin Cicker points out, Egyptair or Silk-Air pilots may wish to contribute). In fact, compliant legal systems such as that in Singapore will even construe the exact opposite of what most sane people will conclude from a CVR transcript.

The point is simply: what is it a pilot would want to withold from the public's ears - particularly after a crash?

Carnage Matey!

25th Apr 2002, 13:23

I havn't looked at your profile as I write this but are you actually a pilot Alpha Leader? You do sooooo love to characterise us all as arrogant, pompous, full-of-our-own-importance Colonel Blimp type characters that I can only assume you are suffering a major complex!

I'll tell you exactly what I want to withold from the publics ears after a crash:

1) Any non-pertinent conversation recorded prior to the incident.

2) The pilots voices, and all the tones and emotions therein, which would cause immense distress to families and friends.

Whats wrong with that? Or do you think our families and friends don't have rights?

Anyway, in the Silkair case weren't the CVR and FDR circuit breakers pulled before the aircraft departed normal flight? By broadcasting these tapes all you're going to ensure is that next time someone feels like doing themselves and the aircraft in they'll pull both CBs before they do it and then nothing will be known.

TowerDog

25th Apr 2002, 13:48

Agree with Carnage and Greatorex: Well spoken gents.

Guys like Tin Kicker and Alpha Leader don't seem to have the big picture, probably never flown anything except from a pax seat, yet knows all the answers.:rolleyes:

greatorex

25th Apr 2002, 20:43

Thanks TD and well said indeed, Carnage.

I'm not sure that I would ever want my family to hear the CVR, if, God forbid, anything fatal should happen on my watch. In this current day and age, what we do is stressful enough for those we leave behind on the ground without the possibility of having to face a loved one's last words.

The very thought sends shivers down my spine.

Raas767

25th Apr 2002, 21:14

Well written posts Carnage. I agree with you 100%.
As I have stated before, once you allow CVR and or FDR data in to the public domain you are climbing up a slippery rope and setting a dangerous precedent. When airline pilots agreed years ago to have thier conversations monitored it was with the understanding that the information would be used in accident investigation and the enhacement of safety. That's all. Terrorism or no terrorism.
The day our daily activity can be aired on CNN at will is the day everyone of us should walk out on strike!

Four Seven Eleven

25th Apr 2002, 21:27

Having read through the posts in this thread, I offer the following observations:

1) I have an interest in hearing and seeing all of the information relating to this and other disasters. This interest is partly professional and partly 'mere interest'. My interest does not, however, confer upon me any rights to see or hear CVRs.

2) If the lessons learned from CVRs are able to be promulgated through other methods, e.g. by publishing carefully considered accident reports, then my professional interests have been met, and there is no need for the lurid release of CVR recordings.

3) If a precedent were to be set, and these recordings were to be made public, then what chance is there that pilots would ever agree to enhanced safety investigation tools such as Cockpit Video Recordings. I have no doubt that video would be a great tool for accident/incident investigators, but are we prepared to have video footage of our colleagues' deaths replayed on the evening news?

4) We can learn all of the lessons that need to be learned from this and other disasters and still protect the dignity of those who lost their lives. It is imperative that we do so.

5) There is a vast difference between 'in the public interest' and 'of interest to the public.' Courts and governments have recognised this difference in the past, and we should all insist that they continue to do so.

6) Any failure to respect those who died in this case will inevitably lead to a reluctance to allow even CVRs in the future. The effects on air safety could potentially be disastrous.

7) To their credit, most major media have avoided gratuitous replays of the 9/11 footage, even though this was undoubtedly news footage in the public domain. It appears that this was done to avoid turning this tragedy into a spectacle out of respect for the 3000+ victims. Let us not allow this respect to be diminished through release of these CVRs.

8) This disaster may have been 'unique' - and let us pray that it remains so - but we should not allow it to change the fundamental principles we defend and hold dear .

RIP the innocent of victims. Let us not disturb their peace.

'%MAC'

25th Apr 2002, 21:35

This topic has become a hot bed of disparaging remarks, I certainly do not want to draw any toward myself. But I would like to make some points clear. The NTSB does not release CVRs to the public – ever. If you have heard an actual CVR, first be skeptical, second be advised it did not come from the NTSB, it came from other sources. The Board does not own the CVR nor the data contained there within. The CVR is the property of the airline, in extenuating cases (usually criminal), or through espionage CVR tapes are duplicated and disseminated. The current case is being handled by the FBI, they do not have the same policies as the NTSB, being a criminal investigative body. I reckon the NTSB has very little persuasion when dealing with the likes of John Ashcroft or the new head of the FBI. These people are appointed officials and probably have pressure from above to provide the voice recordings to the family members, it can become a political issue by alienating these people. And GWB certainly knows the value of every additional vote.

As to being skeptical, there is a CVR tape of the Flying Tiger accident in KL which is actually 2 or 3 COA guys sitting down, reading the transcript with an electric fan in the background for static. Quite convincing.

There is nothing in the regulations (14 CFR 121) that says the CVR cannot be used by the company for disciplinary action or termination. This latter part is generally addressed in the union contract. Be advised, those flying for non-union carriers, companies can and do download FDR data to see what you’ve been doing.

Alpha Leader

26th Apr 2002, 01:52

Carnage Matey:

If you would go back through the postings, you'll see that someone with your handle began characterizing other posters (such as Tin Kicker and myself). It seems, however, that you do not appreciate being characterized yourself. But that's ok and not an uncommon sensitivity.

Tower Dog:

I have, in my earlier years, flown serious equipment (F-5 Tiger II), so don't worry about that.

Wiley

26th Apr 2002, 03:27

For those who want the CVR released, may I play Devil’s Advocate for a moment here?

Firstly, few would disagree with my ‘given’ that the U.S. is a very litigious nation. Translated, that means that whenever something out of the ordinary occurs, someone will sue someone over something involving the incident.

So let’s hypothesise a moment - (and I’m not saying this is what happened, OK? I’m hypothesising) : the CVR is released and it shows clearly (note that word) that one of the passengers, with what most (note that last word) people would agree was extraordinary bravery, forced his way into the cockpit and… let’s say pulled both fire handles, or the fuel switches. Maybe he simply threw himself onto the lap of one of the hijackers (who were in the pilots’ seats) and forced the yoke full forward with his body, making the aircraft uncontrollable.

Whatever he did, he caused (note that word) the aircraft to crash before it could reach the White House or some other major target.

And let’s throw in an extra dimension just to spice the hypothesis up a little. The CVR audio tape allows investigators to identify the hero… and it turns out that he was a relatively wealthy man. The hell with it… he was a mutli-squillioniare.

Is there anyone out there who’d seriously try to tell me that some damned bottom-feeding lawyer wouldn’t sue his estate on behalf of someone, alleging that the situation might have been recoverable and the aircraft and passengers saved if he’d allowed others to overcome the hijackers in their own good time?

And then there’s be the civil suits, from lawyers for the other passengers killed to the grand niece of the farmer who’s property the aircraft MIGHT have flown over if it had taken off from Anchorage, Alaska and not Boston, Mass ….

Think I’m exaggerating? Isn’t the mother of the 15 year old who fly the C152 into the building in Florida suing the company that produces the acne cream he was using at the time for 70 million dollars?

N380UA

26th Apr 2002, 06:39

Never once was I advocating airing CVR recordings on CNN at will. I was however trying to find a consent, (in this particular case only!! Period!!) to which the original flight crew would not be compromised yet the historical events of that day would clearly and unadulterated be brought to light. As such and because there is no mean way to be found (at least not here) I’d like to concur especially with Four Seven Eleven. If it is all or nothing, then the tapes must stay concealed and should not be disclosed to any party other then the NTSB, FBI, FAA and the carrier which bares all the rights to all information contained therein. As this was not an accident, not sensible conclusion can be drawn from the event to make air travel any safer. At best a “How to deal a suicidal highjacker” bulletin could be issued.

edit for:

Wiley

BTW, were the pax of 93 not nominated for a government bravery medal? Any lawyer to take on a case suing any one of the people aboard of that flight would be lynched don’t you think?