PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   AF 447 Thread No. 10 (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/493472-af-447-thread-no-10-a.html)

roulishollandais 16th Mar 2013 19:45

FDR raw data or graphs ?
 

Originally Posted by Lonewolf 50
While that applies to the CVR, I was asking va about FDR and raw data interpretation. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/wink2.gif

The investigation report is both an analysis that requires the raw document, and a synthesis that accommodates many presentations more sophisticated.
The purpose of this investigation is to be extremely clear to pull all the fruits of the unhappy experience.
Thus ICAO has chosen to make public the CVR.Il also makes public radio conversations, although we have all sworn not to report the radio conversations. Isn't?
Drift occurred with time on the use of these reports. Trade secret has interfered in international civil aviation, while patents should always be published for the payment of royalties.

AlphaZuluRomeo 16th Mar 2013 20:06


Originally Posted by llagonne66 (Post 7745304)
Well said :ok:

Indeed. Thank you Chris. :D

For one more rotation of the wheel: The CVR would be understandable only by those knowing enough french and english to do so.
"I do not trust anyone to interpret evidence for me." is a good point of view IMO, but for that one should:
- have to interpret evidence, i.e. not being a PPRuNer but a judge or someone involved, and
- possess the needed knowledge (of languages for the CVR, of technicalities for the FDR) and of course a serious background of the jobs.

Not meeting those criteria, I'm happy with the level of public release, pending the trial.

Lyman 16th Mar 2013 20:12

I am on record as not wishing to hear the CVR, neither do I have the competence to interpret Raw Data.

If in fact the CVR contains a record of the Commandant du Bord as saying he was too tired to fly, and the Agency is guilty of not disclosing that, then however eloquent some may be in diverting attention from the issue to some anonymous poster(s) has not only no importance, but is impacting the safety of the industry negatively.

The status quo is not working.

We will see.

DozyWannabe 16th Mar 2013 20:35

@Chris Scott - emphatic +1! :ok:

@Lyman:

Given the notorious flakiness of Italian media (and the Daily Mail's penchant for reprinting every bit of scuttlebutt it can find), I'm convinced the veracity of the claim is at best very dubious. Also, the Captain was not on the flight deck during the onset and initial response phases of the accident sequence - his return coincided with the point where recovery would have already been difficult, so logically it has no bearing on the most important timeframe.

Additionally, we know that while the PNF was on the same turnaround time as the Captain, the PF (who was effectively in command at the onset) had been on vacation for some time prior to the flight and was in effect on Rio de Janeiro time (IIRC his body clock would have been on roughly around midnight).

jcjeant 16th Mar 2013 20:36

Fatigue Zzzzzz continued:

In the report of the judicial experts (available in french only)
My bold

pour toi », « Pour l'instant j'ai pas envie » lui répond il. Le CdB lui demande alors : « Où ils se font
les contact par HF d'après toi, à JIVTOL, ça devrait arriver, ça serait pas mal, ou FEMUR, on va
les contacter à FEMUR en HF », l'OPL précise: « Ah non, la FIR, c'est INTOL » ( la FIR est la
limite de la zone et c'est effectivement le point de contact par HF).
A 01h03.54 Un PNC féminin appelle de pilotage pour rapporter qu'il fait froid à l'arrière de la
cabine.
A 01 h04.19 Une personne pénètre dans le poste pilotage (sans doute GP accompagnant un membre
de l'équipage), à une question sur le sommeil, le CdB répond: « Cette nuit, j'ai pas assez dormi,
une heure, c'était pas assez tout à l'heure ».
La réponse du Dispatch précise que l'aérodrome a un accès restreint aux aéronefs en « emergency »,
il peut donc être retenu puisqu'en cas de déroutement, l'avion pourra être considéré en emergency.
01h04.19
Someone come in the cockpit (probably one person accompanying a crew member)
to a question on sleep, the Captain replied: "That night I did not sleep enough,
an hour, it was not quite enough time. "

DozyWannabe 16th Mar 2013 20:42

"That night" - what night is he referring to?

And who are the "judical experts"?

AlphaZuluRomeo 16th Mar 2013 21:22

jcjeant, that's a misleading translation.
« Cette nuit, j'ai pas assez dormi, une heure, c'était pas assez tout à l'heure »
« I didn't sleep enough last night, one hour was not enough earlier »
The second part ("one hour") refers to a nap IMO.

Mr Optimistic 16th Mar 2013 21:37

Can somebody bring me up to date: what are we arguing about now ?

AlphaZuluRomeo 16th Mar 2013 21:44

Dozy, the CVs of the experts are included in the judicial report.

Extracts...

1]
FAF engineer (FAS - Mirage IV)
Airlec engineer (single & twin engines aircrafts, helicopters)
DGAC, retired 2003
Private pilot (and ultra light)

2]
French Navy pilot
777 Captain (AF), FI
Retired

3]
A330 Captain (CORSAIR)
ITRE DGAC, TRI A320/A330

4]
5 years Airbus
Bureau Veritas (in relation with aeronautics)
Quality Director then Technical director (AIR LIBERTE)
Consultant since 2001

5]
A330 Captain (CORSAIR)
TRI/TRE
Manager (AIRLINAIR)

jcjeant 16th Mar 2013 21:44


And who are the "judical experts"?
They are not masked .. like the "Anonymous" ...
• Charles MAGNE, Expert près la Cour d'Appel de Bordeaux
• Alain de VALENCE, Expert près la Cour d'Appel de Lyon
• Eric BRODBECK, Expert ayant prêté serment
• Michel BEYRIS, Expert ayant prêté serment
• Hubert ARNOULD, Expert près la Cour d'Appel de Reims

AlphaZuluRomeo 16th Mar 2013 21:51

So much for not naming names when it's no use (my opinion).
Although the first one is really... no kidding? What did parents think?

jcjeant 16th Mar 2013 21:58


So much for not naming names when it's no use (my opinion).
Those names are from people know from the public and are in no way members of a secret society .. or protected by a non disclosure law and they will appear on the trial unmasked !

OK465 16th Mar 2013 21:59


What did parents think?
:)

Bill (Learjet) Lear's daughter was named Chanda.

atakacs 16th Mar 2013 22:22

It would seem for "leaks" that the whole crew did party the night before the flight. In any case I'm surprised that their whereabouts & activities could not be retraced. Maybe irrelevant, maybe not...

AlphaZuluRomeo 16th Mar 2013 22:45

jcjeant,
You're free to name names, I'm free to tell I find this neither relevant nor elegant.
I'm by no means member of a secret society, but I don't like either being named on the web, where I know it will be archived in one way or another, without my consent or even knowledge.
This personal feeling makes me cautious for me, but for other people too, when not needed otherwise. I don't think names add anything relevant here. OTOH, qualifications do.

(sorry, personal mantra; will leave this OT now)

DozyWannabe 17th Mar 2013 01:39

Having translated the "Mission" statement of that report (which can be found here) :

http://aerofuites.com/exp-jud-juin-2...nique-du-2.pdf

It becomes clear that they were working at least in part *with* the BEA and reviewing the conclusions, not in isolation - so the idea that the BEA may be withholding anything doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I'll try to translate the whole thing, but it'll take some time.

roulishollandais 17th Mar 2013 03:30

@DozyWannabe
Thank you very much for the link and for your contribution! :):):)

CONF iture 17th Mar 2013 13:24


Originally Posted by Chris Scott

Full CVR audio does not belong to the public but it belongs to the front crew.

Full CVR audio + full FDR data have to go to the pilot at the same time they go to the investigative body + manufacturer.

If I die on my job, I want my wife to have my data.
Too painful it will be for her to listen to the tape, but I have Friends I trust she can provide the information to, making sure every one is keeping honest in his duty.

jcjeant 17th Mar 2013 14:09


It becomes clear that they were working at least in part *with* the BEA and reviewing the conclusions, not in isolation - so the idea that the BEA may be withholding anything doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Can be but be aware that those experts were appointed by the judge in charge of the case and therefore have the power of the law to access to all the documents they deem necessary
As you begin the hard work of translation .. you will realize that a lot of elements of this report do not appear in the final report of the BEA .. but were in the hand of the BEA
The experts (independent .. just like the BEA) deem to put those in their report for some reason
Note:
http://aerofuites.com/exp-jud-juin-2...nique-du-2.pdf
It's only the first part of the report .. this is two more parts ( the second part of the report and one annexe ) for have the full report
Lot of stuff indeed ..

Lyman 17th Mar 2013 14:29

IMO

The genesis of any opinion begins at the instant of first exposure to the evidence. Nothing in human experience is NOT opinion. Do we rely on numbers to form the best guess at Truth? (Consensus)? Works in politics. Less so in Darts, and should have no place in considered judgment.

Do we assign agents to make determinations? Of course. Rather than one agency composed of ten agents, perhaps three agencies, composed of three agents each.

REVIEW, then.....We wll see.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:14.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.