AF 447 Thread No. 10
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR Censorship
Dozy remarked:
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't shoot the messenger!
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.
In the case of a private entity passing judgment on the causes of a horrible crash
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
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:
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dozy:
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.
Don't shoot the messenger!
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Organfreak,
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...
"The truth is that no degree of revelation would silence their accusations of tampering of the data..." Nonsense.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
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.)
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.)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWA800 is a school case for conspiracist
The key word in the report .. after 4 years of painfull investigations .. is "probable" 
This leaves doors wide open for anyone with imagination
The report's conclusion was that the "probable" cause of the accident was an explosion of flammable fuel/air vapors in a fuel tank
This leaves doors wide open for anyone with imagination
Are the slides posted on line?
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
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
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
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.
Will aircrews look at it and learn from it?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 88
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key word in the report .. after 4 years of painfull investigations .. is "probable"
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.
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.
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.
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 i´m concerned, that it will again end up in some fixed procedure without transfering te knowledge which led to the developement of said procedure.
