Lyman,
If not the NTSB or BEA, who, in your mind should do airline/aircraft accident investigations? What would be the make up of that organization in terms of expertise?

Somebody like "ExPonent, Failure Analysis Associates", in Menlo Park, California.

Or RTCA, who published strict rules for Lithium Ion Batteries, which Boeing then completely ignored, relying instead on their own in house generated "special conditions".....Which they then failed completely, because the authority, FAA, allowed them to certify themselves?

But certainly a private and independent entity, some one who is not paid by the people who compose their mission statement....(Congress).

Who would you choose? Some one who receives Lobby Money, or someone who is paid out of independently managed and scrutinized funds? Subject to independent Grand Jury Audit, at random?

:ok:

May I submit for the approval of the assembly the most egregious and flagrant "OXYMORON" known to mankind?

"CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT"

Yeah - 'cos whoever heard of a private entity being corrupt? :rolleyes:

Look - while the independent agencies are funded by the various governments, the funds ultimately come from taxes paid by (among others) the people of the country. Ultimately it's those people those agencies are answerable to, because they are chartered to ensure their safety. Imperfect as it is, I for one have more faith in that social compact than I would in a for-profit organisation trying to do the same.

Dozy

You my friend, have two annoying idiosyncratic tendencies.

First, your habit is to respond to a post that is in conversation with two other parties.

Second, you jump in and defend or attack an exchange of semi personal flavor involving others.

Oh, and three.

Your belief, without question, is that your mere disagreement with another poster is sufficient to successfully extinguish the other position.

I charge it off to exuberance.

Meet me at the TechLog thread Batteries and Chargers, and we will discuss the utter incompetence and blatant conflict of interest of the two American entities, NTSB and FAA.

I would like to bid adieu to this thread, pending the ultimate release of the complete data by BEA.

Hey Bill,

Firstly, all forum discussions are group discussions - so I, or for that matter anyone else, should be free to contribute at will. The PM system exists for more private discussions. Secondly, my opinion is just that - I don't ascribe myself psychic abilities or consider my word on any matter final; if you choose to read me this way then I suggest you're reading me wrong.

Finally, the 787 issues have not involved the NTSB at any point, because the NTSB can only become involved in the event of an accident or serious incident (usually involving injury). Don't make the mistake of assuming that because they are both government agencies they get their marching orders from the same people.

Sorry?

Enough OT, out

Lyman,
It is a small world out there in the accident investigating field. Most private firms wouldn't have the capability to do a complex investigation on their own. Exponent does have a person knowledgable in transportation investigations according to their web page:
Exponent was used by the NTSB in the investigations of TWA800 and AA587. They were also used in the Turkish Airlines 981 accident investigation lead by a French Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Minister for Transportation.

Personally, I am generally satisfied with the way the NTSB does their investigations and don't see the advantage of taking this function private. OTOH, I think the FAA could do a better job when given recommendations by the NTSB.

Hi TD

Yep. The only current gripe I have re: NTSB is that its chief, Deborah Hersman, is at the top of a short list to head the Department of Transportaton for President Obama. The current chief resigned just after the grounding of 787, but was pressured into staying on, to avoid making Boeing look bad.

As to FAA, my recommendation is to scrap the entire agency, with prejudice ("and don't come back").....

I favor a review of NTSB findings, why not? Second opinions are de rigeur in other important realms.

FAA should be a legal and administrative agency/entity, familiar with transport law, risk manaagement, and safety issues, not "to promote Aviation" (from the FAA charter, I kid you not)

and
This is one of the (unfortunately) not so frequent occurrences where I absolutely have to agree with you!

Sometimes I have the feeling the last sentence should in reality even read it is "to promote Aviation INDUSTRY". Joe public doesn't seem to rank terribly high on their agenda...

That said, your bashing/mistrust of NTSB on the other hand I don't share.
They have often stated unfavourable/critical things regarding aircraft/airlines/other companies only to be later ignored by FAA.

That is neither here nor there. You are all falling for the bait. Lyman/Bearfoil/Airfoilmod/Will Fraser etc. is simply here to perpetuate an argument.It does not matter what is right or wrong, what is truth or opinion. All that matters is impugning anything that can be seen as authority and maintaining a perpetual argument

This is nothing but a rerun of an attention seeking individual.

TWA 800 was the worst case of NTSB manipulating the final center fuel tank explosion as the cause of the crash. All observers of how it happened were disregarded to make their case. They decided to make the cause of crash what they wanted and worked backwords to make it seem logical.

KBPsen: we are occasionally advised to play the ball not the man. ;)

Bubbers: what, was Salinger right? Was it an Aegis cruiser shooting an SM-2 missile that really brought it down? :eek:

Lonewolf, every conflict is not your responsibility, so you do not have to resolve all.. Grow up.

No quibble with that observation. Trying to be a peacemaker.
Play the ball, not the man ... boy.

Guess it didn't work. May have to do with pigs and sows's ears. :p

Folks, can we keep ourselves nice, please ? Lest the sword be wielded.

Please see bold from my post:

Contrary to what we might like to believe, not all of the report production process in an accident investigative body uses objective thinking. This includes part of the process when plotting the numbers onto graphs.

vapilot: given that most raw data needs a bit of interpretation, should we toss into the bin, then, all FDR based analysis, deliberation, and conclusion? (I doubt you feel that way.)

Does the BEA's analysis not achieve the "good enough" standard in this investigation?

If not, why not?

TurbineD

I was involved (at the investigative level) in a fatal motor vehicle accident (MVA). The client was charged with Vehicular manslaughter and looking at 15 years in prison.

The Official Report by the Highway Patrol was damning, and on the face of it, impenetrable. My partner, through diligent research, found record of an interview done by the State investigator. The eyewitness was a registered Nurse, and first on the scene, performing unfortunately unsuccessful resuscitative work on the dying victim.

The record of the interview was nowhere to be found in the Official Report.

The witness was incredulous, "They did not quote my statements?"

Fifteen minutes after the District Attorney found out that the witness had been found, and was willing to testify at Trial, he dropped all charges.

NOTHING in the Official Report was false. It portrayed a slam dunk case of manslaughter. One piece of evidence, excluded from the report, (when "found"), trashed the Official report to smithereens.

The eyewitness report was wilfully and illegally hidden, suppressed.
There was no reason to support a charge of felony obstruction, the person who hid the interview was someone who would participate in many more actions, and one needed to be circumspect about those kinds of things. We were happy with the dismissal, and satisfied that "Justice" had been won.

I do NOT charge misfeasance; BEA has released a FINAL report, no one may ever know what is in the full record. Probably nothing of importance.

Confucius: "A Half Truth is a Whole Lie".

Trust in GOD, all others must disclose....

NATURAL LANGUAGE IS NOT CONTEXT-FREE
 

@ Lonewolf_50, Turbine D, DozyWannabe, Other

I agree with Lyman and vapilot2004 conclusions for that reason :

CVR and Witness report are in NATURAL LANGUAGE , a NON-CONTEXT-FREE language. So you cannot replace or modify them.:=

Not modified CVR and Witness report bring us not only the FORMAL CONTEXT-FREE words but also the Context which helps us to understand the words and semantic of NATURAL LANGUAGE of the Crew and of the Witness.

It is the main difference between Human and software production.

Roul, thank you. I am on board with that challenge to any investigation.

While that applies to the CVR, I was asking va about FDR and raw data interpretation. ;)

Airbus Test Pilot Says Air France Crash Defeats Simulators
 

Evidently Airbus is complaining that no one has been able to design a simulator to -- and that this means that more non-simulator training needs to take place.

http://http://www.bloomberg.com/news...tml?cmpid=yhoo

Good link to Bloomberg news !
Airbus Test Pilot Says Air France Crash Defeats Simulators - Bloomberg
I can be wrong .. but I think that the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet have such automatism (Auto spin or stall recovery)
Maybe Gums can tell us more about ...

My understanding of the F/A18 is that at low speed, (0, on the catapult) and "departed" the hand must be off the stick....

The Pilot must "Let go", the aircraft recovers (launches) itself.....


gums?

OK .. I'm wrong
Hands off !!

When it comes to data, most of the major bureaus and boards only publish enough data to illustrate their focused areas of concern, leaving out the obvious unneeded stuff, which is perfectly fine, but also omitting that which fails to support their thesis - not unlike the modus operandi of a criminal defense attorney or a skilled prosecutor. Although looked down upon in the scientific world, it remains a common practice even within these trusted agencies. Blame it on pride, human nature, or whatever you desire. Some are better at 'full disclosure' than others, and history has taught me that within the same agency (NTSB) some investigations are more thorough and forthcoming than others.

Since the AF447 readouts are unpublished and remain under lock and key - unobtainable even to those parties on the inside with a vested interest in the investigation - and what was published was cherry-picked, I can't say whether the BEA's analysis was good or bad. What I can say is there are a multitude of unpublished areas, both temporal and in selected data channel, that everyone should be able to examine in order to better understand what the aircraft was doing, what the automatics were doing, and what the pilots saw on their instrument displays.

It would be easier to understand your discourse, if you could tell us what those areas are.

It strikes me as uncharacteristic of you to ask a loaded question, HazelNuts39.

If one has not seen something, how is it possible to index it for you?

Lyman,

How can one say "there are a multitude of unpublished areas" if one has not seen anything? Speaking in generalities is useless, specific 'omissions' can be discussed.

" what the aircraft was doing, what the automatics were doing, and what the pilots saw on their instrument displays" is all extensively discussed in the report, with all the relevant data as recorded. I really am at a loss what data could possibly be added to better understand those topics. "What the pilots saw" is asking what went on in their minds, and that was not recorded.

The only hope of knowing what has "not been made ​​public" so far is that it will probably be made public during the trial
Indeed, the judge may require all documents he deems necessary to establish the judicial truth .. it is in his power

HazelNuts39

I cannot believe we are having this discussion. Early: "Here, and Here, you go up, so go down..." "You climb, so go down..." 'Eh, what are you doing..."

Either you believe there is nothing of value in the CVR, and BEA have divulged what they have, without comment. Or you think and trust that BEA should be the be all and end all, of inflection, tone, vocabulary, etc. I do not trust anyone to interpret evidence for me. If I am privy to knowledge of dangerous behaviour by an airline, crew, or equipment, it is my RIGHT to make an informed conclusion, after assessing the evidence, for myself.

I have my reasons, as do others, for not being so trusting. I do not for one thing believe in a "sole source", when it comes to Public safety. I have seen enough of that that backfired on the investigation, and even led to prosecution for serious "errors" of "judgment"...

It is a fundamental of Western society that an accused be allowed to face his accusers, and testify on his behalf in any proceeding. The CVR is the last eyewitness account of an accident that has value for all of us regarding furthering the cause of safety, not to mention the reputations and state of mind of the crew....

What is it about the Truth that you do not feel obliged to seek? Do you believe the report is scrupulously complete, and without bias? It is impossible, without knowing the evidence, in my opinion, to know these things.

For one reason or another, this crash is charged as a crime, manslaughter. With holding evidence is a crime in and of itself, imo.

I have no idea the reputation of this source... But the MAIL ONLINE claims DuBois was heard claiming he had but one hour rest the night before the flight....

Lyman,

There are three recorded 'data channels' - the ACARS messages, the DFDR data, and the CVR. The DFDR tells us what the pilot did with the controls, and what the airplane did in response. The two have been correlated, and there is no open question about those. The DFDR data, together with the information gathered by BEA, tells us what the automatics were doing. It was extensively discussed on this forum. I'm not aware of any open questions in that area, except the behavior of the flight directors, but that was not recorded. The DFDR also tells us most of the information available to the pilots on their displays and BEA has reconstructed as far as possible the missing parts. Where that was not possible, the information was not recorded.

We do not know what the pilots saw because it was not recorded what they were looking at, nor how their brains processed what they saw. The CVR tells us what they told each other, and what other sounds there were in the cockpit. True, that information is too scarce to enable us to fully understand their mental processes, why they acted the way they did. If they had said more, maybe we would better understand what they did. But, if they said more, how could it be in anybody's interest to hide that?

They did say more. You will say they did not. BEA have said nothing either way...

You are satisfied with that. My experience instructs me to ask for proof...

A graph of any kind can be erratic, inexplicit, and misinterpreted. Raw data, all of it....thank you.

Recovery is automatic but it has to be initiated manually via switch, at least on A-D models. Pilot has to be aware he lost control and has to admit to himself he doesn't know how to regain it.

Nope, it is ignorant misinterpretation of what Airbus said. Simulators accurately replicate the conditions for which there are collected data and that includes couple of degrees beyond alpha crit on 330 but certainly there is no requirement to get transport aeroplane to 45° AoA or test pilot suicidal enough to try it.

Correct, but the scarcity of info is info in itself - not to show there is some conspiracy with BEA deliberately falsifying the CVR transcripts but that the crew was so shocked there is no clear verbalization of what they think is going on.

Simply, if one's intention is not to discuss meaningfully but rather to elicit a reaction.

I can agree with you there.

Some of what they said has been deemed irrelevant to the investigation, while on the otherhand, the speech tone and/or intonation imparted may in itself provide some additional clues. The BEA have in IMO avoided making those calls, as to do so would create further dispute over the rights or wrongs of such judgements.

Patience is a virtue, and the criminal trial programed for sometime in the future may eventually establish a little more about the situation in the cockpit that night, not that it will ever change the substance of the BEA's Final Report.

Based on what?

( ) Words or group of words whose meaning has not been identified with certainty. The “ / “ symbol gives various proposals.
(…) Word or group of words with no bearing on the flight
(!) Curse
(*) Words or groups of words not understood

I have read the CVR transcript - just like you, and the reasons I gave for my statement followed the piece you quoted.:D

From A320Driver, on the RN thread (447)

I also found that in the Daily Mail, from Ben's site.

If that is from the CVR, (how?) Then BEA should be removed from any role in the further investigation of the flight, and another impartial entity be appointed.

And they should relinquish all evidence. Criminal prosecution should ensue.

About fatigue .. this what all I find in the BEA final report:
Note:
Bold added by me
Seems the judicial experts have more infos about fatigue in their report ..

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.

Chris
 

Well said :ok: