Any representation of raw data in any other form other than the source numbers is manipulation unless the original scale is maintained and molestation of the timeline is avoided.

I don't think the scale and timeline have been altered to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately the PDF conversion has rendered the graphs in a relatively low resolution, but they're still readable.

What I was getting at (as I'm sure you're aware) was whether certain posters believe that the data was deliberately altered to say something other than what was on the DFDR, and what reason they have for thinking that may be the case.

For the record, I think the data is genuine.

Data, data - you say genuine, I say véritable
 

Every DFDR/FDR data output set that I have ever laid eyes upon contains data points that do not fit the overall picture. Some are spurious and unavoidable due to monitoring and data collection system limitations and are rejected unless they fit a pattern under investigation. Other odd bits are known transducer noise anomalies. In a highly digital aircraft such as the Airbus or most modern Boeings, most of the raw transducer anomalies are filtered before they get to any exterior data bus. The DFDR, by virtue of its design, recording limitations, and things like the time slice paradox, does a bit of filtering itself.

Now, take what is left, and try to paint a perfectly accurate picture of exactly what was happening and when - it can't be done, however a reasonably accurate representation of the various parameters is what we have to work with, and in most cases, this is enough for forensic analysis.

On to the public release - the mere act of taking those fiddled numbers and placing them on a chart is once again a manipulation of the raw data. Subtle, and mostly innocuous, but the movement away from fidelity is incontrovertible and obvious to those who have seen the raw traces.

Dozy

To me, It is not necessary to accuse anyone of anything. The report and its genesis are self explanatory. Without the fullness of the Data, in its entirety, the report is misleading beginning on its face page. Purposefully? I cannot say, but again that does not matter either. Everything in view is "interpreted", and left to the imagination.

What's left is what matters, corroboratory, exculpatory, and further room for doubt. What is not included would frame nicely the part that is published, right wrong or indifferent.

It is a "managed" document, apparently satisfactory for most, and dissatisfying for some....

Motive? Who gives a rats behind, the damage is done. "Intent" is loaded with nuance. Nuance has no business in a report that is intended to be a complete and factual record....

Were these gents actually that silent? Speaking prophetically and sparingly to a conclusion of their own incompetence? They had several minutes to bring to bear the sum of their 10000 hours.

It is the height of injustice to not allow them to be heard in the arena of fairness, by experts who can use discretion and somber reflection, toward a result of added wisdom.

They perished fighting a kind of flying that is rightfully held in awe, and fear, by sane and experienced transport pilots.

Their legacy deserves a hearing, by others than those who have thus far prevented one.

I do not wish to hear it. I wish for some neutral and wise party to judge and report what happened. BEA does not qualify in that regard.


That is why Data is necessary, to remove doubt.

Or the instruments, as per design.

The numbers aren't "fiddled". Filtered, maybe - but no more so than is normal for this kind of process and certainly not due to direct human intervention.

In which case every accident report ever published is, by your standards, "misleading" - as they are based on data sets no more precise than those supplied here and do not include a full dump of the FDR data as a matter of course.

Same as for most accident reports. For example, the Spanish report on the 1977 Tenerife disaster was very unsatisfactory to the Dutch investigators, yet the veracity of that report is rarely, if ever, questioned.

So why are you not demanding the same for other accidents?

Why does the BEA not qualify? Neutrality is in their charter!

Maybe not all the FDR but at least a big part (the most relevant for the accident)
Find here the Sharm El Sheik accident report (Egyptian report) with FDR listing (from pages 96 to 305!)
Download Report Charm pdf - upload, email & send large files up to 1GB for free!
And in France also .. FDR listings are sometime released to the public ...
Download Listing FDF France jpg - upload, email & send large files up to 1GB for free!

Last time I tried to download those it tried to put a trojan on my computer. Hopefully I'll have more luck this time...

I note that the second (French) document dates to 1990. Given that there were far fewer methods at that time to render such data graphically and in an easily-readable format, could it not be that the graphical method used by the BEA now is simply a tool of convenience?

ical
 

Whether you accept it or no, the BEA fail neutrality and wisdom both, by definition, and at Law.

They are an arm of the FRENCH government, which has an enormous stake in the outcome. There are economic and political repercussions.

BEA themselves would demur as to wisdom, for wisdom bears judgment, and BEA may not judge.

My opinion.

Precisely, my friend.

Both words describe an alteration, or better, interpretation if you will, of the raw numbers. Perhaps one has a negative connotation that should be avoided?

Lyman,
It seems to me you are taking the case where the basic facts of the cause of this accident are well understood and attempting to make them less understood with your unsubstantiated theories, imagination and innuendoes.
Below is the released data, CVR and FDR from the BEA. That's all there is. In the absence of the Captain, the PF & the PNF stalled the airplane, never figured out they were stalled and upon the return of the Captain, he couldn't unravel what had taken place and what was happening in time to make a difference.

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...nexe.01.en.pdf

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...nexe.02.en.pdf
I don't agree. It has certainly focused attention on high altitude, high speed manual flying as well as what to do and not do should UAS suddenly happen. So far, there has not been a repeat so there has been learning going on, one would think, not all has been squandered.

What stake would that be? The A330 is already a success in financial terms and the pan-European Airbus consortium is going toe-to-toe with Boeing in the global airliner market. How would the outcome of this investigation change that?

I ask again, are you insinuating the BEA's complicity in a cover-up?

No more or less than any other commercial aviation disaster.

They have no legal say - however as with every other accident investigation bureau they are required to make a judgement call on the technical and human factors surrounding the accident.

It's not an alteration of the numbers (as they came out of the DFDR), it is simply a graphical rendering*.

* - Which in turn allows them to present the same amount of data that would take thousands of pages rendered numerically into less than ten pages graphically.

No kidding? I do know how to fly, I do know how to fly on instruments, and I am aware of how modern flight control systems have response rates. I used to have to check them for delivery, according to a spec.
Why are you asking me? The "position of THS" beacme a topic of discussion in re AF 447, and some of the folks in this discussion feel that the THS ended up impeding the recovery. I am not in that camp.

You comment to me there is not on point, as I was referring to response rates, a feature which will be found in any aircraft that has hydraulic/electro mechanisms in the linkages between pilot input and flight control surface movement. As I understand it from those folks who fly the A330, the response rates are just fine in normal flying. No surprise, I imagine the AB engineers and test pilots did a lot of work together to get that "just right" before deliveries started ...
Thanks for that, but I already know that.

Cheers.

LW_50, I suspect that while Clandestino's point is referring to your post he is - as usual - addressing the gallery and not you specifically. As far as I can tell you're singing from the same hymn sheet, and I wouldn't take it personally.

For good or for ill, he does tend to go off like a hand-grenade!

Dozy you make some good points re: the report.

It is what it is. I have high expectations, and am irritated at the "sole source" aspect of the system as expressed currently. It has the flavor of secrecy, something that is repellent in a free society.

It does not feel or appear right that evidence can go unseen by all but one group. I would favor an Ombudsman to represent neutrality. Certainly at the level of International Aero Commerce....

Whether or not there was bias, the system is set up to create the appearance of prejudice, at least to me.

It's been a great ride, thank you for all the energetic point counterpoint. I do not know about you but I have learned alot, and you have been a source of some of that new knowledge, so thanks....

Cheers.

How so? The only reason the BEA has been the primary investigatory agency with little outside influence is because no other agency has asked to join in at that level. Don't forget that in the case of the Mt. St. Odile accident (probably mindful of the press assertions regarding AF296) the BEA invited an NTSB team in to check their work.

And yet the NTSB has been the sole investigatory authority for US-made airframes flown by US-based airlines for decades without similar aspersions being cast - why the double standard?

There's a scar in the earth of the Ermenonville forest just north of Paris that serves as a constant reminder to the French of the folly of sweeping airliner design problems under the carpet. To this day it still pushes bits of metal and bone to the surface. It's a lesson that only needs to be taught once.

It seems to me that the BEA believes he is a journalist
The graphic is their press article and their source is the FDR listing
You can not force a journalist to give his source .. because it is protected by law :}

Dozy: I understand and see something similar. What I fell needs an answer is taking a comment I make somewhat out of context.

@jcj:

Not quite - the data is verbatim from the DFDR, it's just rendered differently - i.e. the formatting has changed but the data has not. Ironically, you could make a case that it's like what passes for "journalism" these days (i.e. slapping a byline on a pre-written press release and leaving it unchanged), but that's different. :ok:

@LW_50:

Sure, and he's misrepresented me once or twice in the heat of the moment - he's usually happy to take it back though, and I'd much rather have him inside the tent than outside! ;)

Dozy

You create the double standard by defining it, and you haven't let me agree. There is no difference in the lack of suitability NTSB/BEA to perform their mission.

The environment for both is populated by people whose job descriptions are written by other people, similarly situated....

The conflict is glaringly obvious, to deny it, is, well, denial....

These folks are BUDS. It is not fair to demand intellectul isolation of the investigators from their confreres. It goes against human nature, and in and of itself creates the conflict.

Assuming people can easily transform themselves into Solomon, is patently ridicilous, and childish.

"Ombudsman"......eliminating the potential, and hence reality, of conflicts.

"Peer".....QED

I disagree. Separating one's personal relationship from the working relationship is Professionalism 101, and in the case of aviation it's even more important to do so. Making sure that your colleagues do the right thing, and in turn allowing them to do the same for you should not be subject to whether you like each other, because in a heavily interdependent organisation getting it wrong lets the team down.

It could be argued that the BEA, NTSB and AAIB fill that role for their regulatory counterparts (i.e. DGAC, FAA and UK CAA) - it's why they were made independent in the first place. Prior to this, political and personal factors allowed standards to slip and it always ended in tears.

One major limitation to this system is that the investigatory agencies only come into play after something has gone wrong - Air France's troubled recent history was well-known amongst the piloting fraternity, but it took something drastic to allow the BEA to investigate. Another limitation is that the regulators cannot be compelled to act on the recommendations of the investigators, but that's for another time.