canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2918 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3240 times:
Quoting Nomik (Reply 2): When will the BEA's investigation be finally completed?
I can not fathom what more there is to add or do?
Most recently, BEA announced that they would form a "Human Factors" working group, made up of specialists in cognitive sciences, ergonomics and psychology to examine all aspects linked to man-machine interactions and to the pilots' actions in the last few minutes of the flight. They said that the work this group was to perform would be done by the end of December, 2011 and included in the Final Report.
BEA has indicated that the Final Report on the incident would be released in the first half of 2012.
Quoting garpd (Reply 1): It's not the first time a crash involving an AF plane has had a refusal of release of the black boxes.
They've released a partial transcript already and in my opinion BEA has done a great job informing the public of the status of the investigation and any revelations that have resulted to date. I see no reason why BEA should release the CVR/FDR, although through litigation they may be forced too.
My post was a direct quote from BEA. You can infer all you want from the links I included above. As I said, BEA has acted as a very professional accident investigation organization since the start of this in '09. Whether or not the CVR/FDR is released to the public I have no reason to believe that they've acted in anything less than a professional manor.
I think it has more to do with cockpit design than anything. On AF447 the pilots did not understand why the aircraft was moving the way it was. It is likely that confusion with instruments contributed significantly to this accident (as did poor CRM). Some environmental changes that affect the human brain's natural (sub-conscious) interaction with the cockpit could actually make a difference (consider "wheels" on landing gear levers).
I think this statement says it all. Man-machine interaction only works when one understands firstly the capabilities and specifications of the machine and secondly, who has final authority.
The BEA should release all transcripts and data info in the interests of openess and clarity, otherwise the conspiracy theory brigade will come a-runnin' with their charges. There is nothing to be lost in letting people see for themselves the evidence. In academia for example, conclusions without full disclosure of the evidence would merit you a slap on the head and dismissal.
Why should they have access to it in the first place? They'll get the transcripts, same as everyone else, as soon as the investigation is done (and not before - the last thing we need is a case going to court based on an incomplete investigation).
The actual recordings themselves should not be released - no good can come of that.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13841 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2112 times:
This is a good example several of the growing conflicts in modern society.
One is privacy rights vs. freedom of information access/transparency. I am quite sure French law and perhaps EC agreements may limit release of the full tapes for sound reasons to protect the privacy of someone going to their death. Then there is that a release or a premature one before all of the potential investigation is complete may compromise it.
Second is the motivations of the various people who want this access. Many probably want to interpret the recordings in their own way either to absolve that the pilots made a mistake or that they had a mechanical/electrical problem so can absolve them of their actions. Many I bet are also wanting sufficient information to consider lawsuits, especially if there was a failure of some critical component made in the USA so can sue 'deep pockets' corporations there.
Third is the growing negative and suspicious attitudes toward governments and agencies, including investigative agencies. I would trust the integrity of the French air crash investigative agencies as equal to the USA's NTSB as well as those of others countries. Problem is that too many see 'conspiracies'. Some fear that the tapes could be edited or altered to limit financial liability and a hit on national pride as to French based AF, Airbus or component makers and to put the blame mainly in the pilots as 'human error'.
Fourth is the time, isolated place and lack of evidence as to how this crash occurred. As air crashes have become more rare and when one occurs as with AF447 with all it's unknowns, many are suspicious as to how it could have happened, so they want access to what may be the only evidence that is accessable.
Even in the USA, we have seen the release of transcripts and even audio of CVR's after the end of the official investigation of a crash. I am quite sure a number of people here have read the transcirpts of several crashes, for example where the deadheading pilots of a regional jet flew too high, damaged the engines, their horrilble dive to their deaths recored and becoming available. For some it is just natural curousity, for others voyerism and that is a balance that is difficult to deal with.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12710 posts, RR: 78
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1931 times:
Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 8): The BEA should release all transcripts and data info in the interests of openess and clarity, otherwise the conspiracy theory brigade will come a-runnin' with their charges.
The conspiracy theory brigade will come running anyway. One of the characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that no evidence is ever sufficient to change their mind. They will just extra those portions of the new evidence that support their views and ignore/deny/denigrate anything that conflicts.
Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 8): There is nothing to be lost in letting people see for themselves the evidence.
"The evidence" are those portions of CVR and FDR that are relevant to the crash. That's what the investigators have released. What's to be lost from releasing the *non* relevant portions, which is what's being asked for here, is the integrity of the investigation.
Quoting captainmeeerkat (Reply 8): In academia for example, conclusions without full disclosure of the evidence would merit you a slap on the head and dismissal.
This is an accident investigation, not a peer reviewed paper. The evidence is disclosed. The parts the vultures want, like non-pertinent cockpit conversation, has nothing to do with the investigation conclusions.