Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

AF 447 Thread No. 10

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

AF 447 Thread No. 10

Old 21st Mar 2013, 16:39
  #1041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 73
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CVR Censorship

Dozy remarked:
Personally I think it's the wrong term to use, due to the aforementioned negative connotations.


I disagree. The term is entirely accurate, no matter the intent. IMO, any removal of any information is to diminish our understanding of the conduct of the flight. I am normally quite sympathetic to the valuing of privacy, but in the case of transporting large numbers of people, I'm afraid that privacy isn't at all appropriate. The World has an abiding interest that ought to trump everything else. (I doubt I'll get much agreement on this from a buncha pilots!)

In the case of a private entity passing judgment on the causes of a horrible crash, I believe that some members of the public feel the need to draw their own conclusions from all of the information available. There will always be some people with some sort of "prurient interest," but I think we need to set that aside in the interest of total transparency.

And...this "prurient interest," which is seldom discussed in depth, is natural, AFAIC, on the basis of: there's a natural curiosity about what it's like to prepare to die in a plane crash. Sorry to rip the lid off a jar of spiders.

Organfreak is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 17:51
  #1042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi,

I disagree
I agree
jcjeant is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 18:15
  #1043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Organfreak View Post
Don't shoot the messenger!

In the case of a private entity passing judgment on the causes of a horrible crash
The investigatory agencies aren't private entities though, they're usually governmental agencies with a charter that explicitly denotes their independence from the regulator and other government bodies and are ultimately accountable to the taxpayers (many of whom are also the travelling public).

The limits on the use of CVR data for public dissemination haven't changed in four decades, and it wasn't the investigatory agencies that set those limits. As a result, words to the effect of "The BEA is censoring data" are misleading, because the BEA, as with other agencies, has to abide by limits that they themselves have no control over.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 18:29
  #1044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I feel like quoting wise words from a few pages back, in an attempt to -perhaps- stop the hamster's wheel:

Originally Posted by Chris Scott View Post
The only inference I can draw from this current discussion is that a few forumites are in effect demanding that the BEA should release the CVR sound track in its entirety, so that it can be broadcast on the www for public judgement and therefore, inevitably, prurient entertainment. Unlike the investigators, they seem to care little of the human consequences, and would carry no responsibilty for them.

They represent the school of the blame and shame culture - the modern equivalent of those who relished the spectacle of the guillotine, or pelted with rotten eggs the petty criminal in the stocks. To them an investigation is a tool for litigation; not for learning. Finally recovered from the trauma of realising that their crazy assertions about the demise of AF447, and the conduct of the search, were discredited, they employ weasel words to imply that the BEA is conspiring to pervert the cause of justice for the deceased.

Those who constantly protest for the truth, but deny it even when it is staring them in the face, include the usual suspects. They know who they are. They have never worked in an airliner cockpit, nor on the bridge of a ship, and appear to have no experience or even understanding of the balance between authority and responsibility in a safety-critical operation. Just as well, for their cavalier indifference to rational thought, combined with obsessive attention seeking, would be a lethal combination. Their constant carping has slowly betrayed their agenda, which even they no longer believe to be compatible with the established facts.

The truth is that no degree of revelation would silence their accusations of tampering of the data and other evidence, and it is impossible to prove a negative. Releasing the CVR audio channels for public consumption would be an immoral act. It would also persuade most flight crew that installing cockpit videos would be an intolerable step. Their arguments are not worthy of consideration.
AlphaZuluRomeo is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 19:08
  #1045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 73
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dozy:
Don't shoot the messenger!
I wasn't. It was just a little joke, since we have a "censored" emoticon. Regardless, if you are "the messenger," you're delivering fact. But in this case, it was opinion, not fact.

And, thanks for the lecture; I'm well aware that BEA is not technically a private entity, but its processes and machinations are, by definition, private, and that's what I meant.

As for the subsequent reprinting of Chris Scott's diatribe, I didn't like it the first time and I like it even less this time. It's full of uncharitable characterizations and motives-not-in-evidence as to those of us who feel that something may be withheld. Just for one example: "The truth is that no degree of revelation would silence their accusations of tampering of the data..." Nonsense.

Last edited by Organfreak; 21st Mar 2013 at 19:10.
Organfreak is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2013, 19:52
  #1046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Organfreak View Post
Regardless, if you are "the messenger," you're delivering fact. But in this case, it was opinion, not fact.
The opinion was sandwiched in between facts - namely that the restrictions on CVR publication are outside the control of the BEA, and thus the notion that the BEA are themselves responsible for the redactions for their own motives is incorrect.

And, thanks for the lecture; I'm well aware that BEA is not technically a private entity, but its processes and machinations are, by definition, private, and that's what I meant.
No more so than any other accident investigation agency.

As for the subsequent reprinting of Chris Scott's diatribe, I didn't like it the first time and I like it even less this time. It's full of uncharitable characterizations and motives-not-in-evidence as to those of us who feel that something may be withheld. Just for one example: "The truth is that no degree of revelation would silence their accusations of tampering of the data..." Nonsense.
Actually, some of the people and organisations he's referring to are indeed that partisan - though I'm pretty certain you yourself are not. For example, the French pilots' union SNPL are well known to have an agenda to harm Airbus at any opportunity - an agenda that dates back to the stink their FE contingent kicked up when Airbus announced the A300 would be available with a two-person flight deck back in the early '70s. You can trace almost every Airbus-related "controversy" in France to the actions of that union and their lawyers - including the notion (for which there is no evidence) that the BEA are somehow involved in deflecting criticism.

The crux of the matter for me is that no person or organisation would stand to benefit from withholding information in that manner. The fact that the BEA report mentions non-optimal aspects of the aircraft design as well as the way it was operated by the airline and the crew means it's likely that both Airbus and Air France will end up paying damages. The A330 is a successful type - its continued existence, operation and sales will not be harmed no matter what was in the BEA report. Is my reasoning in this flawed?

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 21st Mar 2013 at 20:15.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 01:58
  #1047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 83
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Organfreak,
"The truth is that no degree of revelation would silence their accusations of tampering of the data..." Nonsense.
Google TWA800, look at all the blog sites that continue to this day and then tell all, you still believe it is nonsense... Imagination, leading to fictional conclusions, often outruns reality and facts...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 03:20
  #1048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 73
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hear ya, Mr. D.

One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to conspiracy wackos is that (I think) most people are too stupid to actually pull off a complex conspiracy. (Pilots excepted, of course.)
Organfreak is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 03:53
  #1049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TWA800 is a school case for conspiracist
The report's conclusion was that the "probable" cause of the accident was an explosion of flammable fuel/air vapors in a fuel tank
The key word in the report .. after 4 years of painfull investigations .. is "probable"
This leaves doors wide open for anyone with imagination
jcjeant is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 14:00
  #1050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
piper-28 is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 17:10
  #1051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,323
Received 20 Likes on 12 Posts
Are the slides posted on line?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 18:45
  #1052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,218
Received 34 Likes on 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Organfreak View Post
One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to conspiracy wackos is that (I think) most people are too stupid to actually pull off a complex conspiracy. (Pilots excepted, of course.)
Where is the 'I Like' button?

I couldn't have put it any better.
henra is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 19:20
  #1053 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 75
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lonewolf_50, here's a link to the RAeS site discussing the preso...haven't had a chance to examine it for links to the actual ppt.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2013, 19:41
  #1054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,323
Received 20 Likes on 12 Posts
I got to their site, but I don't see them posted yet. Maybe too soon.

I did get to listen in to about the first 25 minutes of the presentation. I think I'll save the whole thing for when I am watching a bit of golf this weekend, with the sound off, and thus multi task. At an hour 40, it's a bit of a time investment.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 16:36
  #1055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 83
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PJ2,

Thanks for the link, Watched the entire presentation last night, it was worthwhile to gain the understanding of stall recovery. I explored the site but couldn't find the actual charts (pdf) from the video. However, your previous postings of the SIM stall exercise you did on stall recovery was confirmed by this video presentation in my mind. TD
Turbine D is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 20:19
  #1056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stall presentation

A wonderful presentation by both Airbus and Boeng. It was enlightening, informative and to the point. A big thanks to both companies for doing this.
thermostat is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2013, 14:56
  #1057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 70
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What effect will it have?

A wonderful presentation by both Airbus and Boeng. It was enlightening, informative and to the point. A big thanks to both companies for doing this.
How will it be used? Will the management and bean counters have a look at it and change some programs? Will the findings and conclusions find their way into procedures and the training of those?

Will aircrews look at it and learn from it?
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2013, 17:16
  #1058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 87
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Franzl,

Your post leaves me wondering ...... I heard four flight test professionals describing how they go about a delicate task that must be approached carefully. They were talking to the Flight Test Group of the RAeS, and I think their purpose was to inform not teach. No lessons to be learned but some questions answered.

Moreover, I suspect that if those much maligned management and bean counters approached those guys and suggested they change their procedures to save a few dollars or euros they would be rapidly and forcibly told where to go and what to do when they got there.
Owain Glyndwr is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2013, 18:27
  #1059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The key word in the report .. after 4 years of painfull investigations .. is "probable"
That's the conspiricy theorist's answer to scientific professionalism.

When all you have are a few smoking (or in this case salt-water corroded) bits of wreckage there is no way you can be 100% definite about any conclusion - even the 737's rudder hard-overs can only "probably" be all associated with a malfunctioning PCU.

Unfortunately, those with axes to grind - or lawyers - interpret this as a license to let their imaginations run riot.
fizz57 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2013, 19:41
  #1060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 70
Posts: 782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Owain Glyndwr

Franzl,

Your post leaves me wondering ...... I heard four flight test professionals describing how they go about a delicate task that must be approached carefully. They were talking to the Flight Test Group of the RAeS, and I think their purpose was to inform not teach. No lessons to be learned but some questions answered.

Moreover, I suspect that if those much maligned management and bean counters approached those guys and suggested they change their procedures to save a few dollars or euros they would be rapidly and forcibly told where to go and what to do when they got there.
Somewhat unsure where to place your kind reply.

I wonder myself, in the briefing was nothing new on the planet, mostly stuff what expierienced old school pilots learned about stalls amd falls from the beginning regardless whether it was civil or military. Was this knowledge completely lost and has to be invented again?
How long will it take to make the findings and results available to the line? And still im concerned, that it will again end up in some fixed procedure without transfering te knowledge which led to the developement of said procedure.
RetiredF4 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.