Hello World

RVSM

Member
Hello All,

Just joined the forum and look forward to contributing by hopefully asking relevant questions about flying in specific.

I've read the thread on N6869R, and understand that the pilot was known on this forum. I've gone ahead and produced a short video containing just the audio track from the Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah (PVU) ATC and N6869R. I posted that under the General Section of the Forum that contains the original NTSB "Factual" Report. My userid is: RVSM. The video is a YouTube.

I detected what I thought was a problem with the ATC comms, but did not discuss that inside the video and would prefer to keep that here on the forum. I guess that once you see the video and hear the ATC audio, as well as what the pilot actually said on that day, the thing that I believe to be a problem will get confirmed - but I want members here to listen to ATC before I say what I think it is (I am not yet a pilot).

Regards,
RVSM
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
The forum is public and can be seen by anyone and is Google cached, with the exception of the lavatory section; so keeping something here on the forum, won't be easy at all.

What is the problem with the ATC comms you detected?
 

RVSM

Member
The forum is public and can be seen by anyone and is Google cached, with the exception of the lavatory section; so keeping something here on the forum, won't be easy at all.

What is the problem with the ATC comms you detected?

I believe the forum Topic Title sits higher up in the heuristic algorithm for the search engine results than do all the sub-headings below it. So, my post might indeed be buried on the Google search scale because it is a sub-topic several steps down. But, you are right - if its on the net - almost everybody can see it.

It had to do with the continuation of a sequence of communications sent to N6869R. After ATC reported that it had the Cessna "in sight," it then communicated to another aircraft that the location of N6869R was about "one quarter mile" short of the approach end of 36R. And, it gets worse. Before pointing another aircraft in the direction of N6869R, which ATC said was short of the runway, it told N6869R to either "Hold Short" of the runway, or "roll through" the active so as not to block traffic.

How could ATC call N6869R to "Hold Short," when just before it said that it had N6869R "in sight?" If it knew that the aircraft went down 1/4 mile before the approach end of 36R, it should have also known that it never made the landing and therefore, issuing the "Hold Short" should never have happened.

Or, I must be missing something important...

 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
I believe the foru Topic Title sits higher up in the heuristic algorithm for the search engine results than do all the sub-headings below it. So, my post might indeed be buried on the Google search scale. But, you are right - if its on the net - almost everybody can see it.
Yeah, Ill go with whatever gibberish you wrote here.....:)

It had to do with the continuation of a sequence of communications sent to N6869R. After ATC reported that it had the Cessna "in sight," it then communicated to another aircraft that the location of N6869R was about "one quarter mile" short of the approach end of 36R. And, it gets worse. Before pointing another aircraft in the direction of N6869R, which ATC said was short of the runway, it told N6869R to either "Hold Short" of the runway, or "roll through" the active so as not to block traffic.

How could ATC call N6869R to "Hold Short," when just before it said that it had N6869R "in sight?" If it knew that the aircraft went down 1/4 mile before the approach end of 36R, it should have also known that it never made the landing and therefore, issuing the "Hold Short" should never have happened.

Or, I must be missing something important...
Ill have to hear the comms myself. Can you post the link to your video? Based on what you describe here, it could be anything from ATC simply using the wrong callsign in the moment of trying to keep traffic out of the way of 69R and keeping a clear runway for him. Traffic being direct to hold short or roll through, would indicate ATC attempting to do this......again, going just by what you wrote here and not having heard the comms yet myself.
 

RVSM

Member
Yeah, Ill go with whatever gibberish you wrote here.....:)
Search engines typically use heuristic algorithms, fairly structured topologies and structured knowledge maps to arrange textual data. I assume that Google uses some of the better designs, but they (search engines) all compete with each other on one level or another. ;)

I just posted the link to the video here in this thread. Let me know what you hear in the audio track.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
I just posted the link to the video here in this thread. Let me know what you hear in the audio track.
There's two agencies in the audio, Provo Tower as well as SLC Flight Watch. It appears that tower is telling 69R that when he touches down on RW 36, to either stop short of RW 31, or roll through the intersection of it, so as to not block two runways when he stops. It's a reasonable request, as by all appearances at this particular time the instruction is given, the pilot of 69R had the runway made without too much of an issue.
 

RVSM

Member
There's two agencies in the audio, Provo Tower as well as SLC Flight Watch. It appears that tower is telling 69R that when he touches down on RW 36, to either stop short of RW 31, or roll through the intersection of it, so as to not block two runways when he stops. It's a reasonable request, as by all appearances at this particular time the instruction is given, the pilot of 69R had the runway made without too much of an issue.

Does ATC normally tell a pilot that is outside of 1/4 mile from the end of the runway, to "Hold Short" or "Roll Through" the intersection of another active runway?

Also, did you hear the part where ATC announced that it had N6869R "in sight," before it told 69R to "Hold Short" or "Roll Through" and after it told another aircraft in the pattern to assist with a visual confirmation of 69R being 1/4 miles short of the approach to 36R? All of this came from ATC, not FW.

That entire sequence of comms (not being a pilot but soon to be) seems a bit odd to me. How could ATC, with a bird's eye view of the entire field, one minute have a visual on 36R, instruct him to Hold Short or Roll Through, yet somehow lose 69R long enough to miss the fact that it ended up 1/4 mile from the approach end of the runway?

I don't understand... help?
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Does ATC normally tell a pilot that is outside of 1/4 mile from the end of the runway, to "Hold Short" or "Roll Through" the intersection of another active runway?
They can make the request. And it really wouldn't be difficult to not stop in the middle of an intersection of runways, if at all possible. I see no issue with it. If 69R can do it, cool. If not, cool. Best case, two runways don't end up blocked that don't need to be. Worst case, push the airplane out of the way. I don't see anything nefarious here.

Also, did you hear the part where ATC announced that it had N6869R "in sight," before it told 69R to "Hold Short" or "Roll Through" and after it told another aircraft in the pattern to assist with a visual confirmation of 69R being 1/4 miles short of the approach to 36R/ All of this came from ATC, not FW.

That entire sequence of comms (not being a pilot but soon to be) seems a bit odd to me. How could ATC, with a bird's eye view of the entire field, one minute have a visual on 36R, instruct him to Hold Short or Roll Through, yet somehow lose 69R long enough to miss the fact that it ended up 1/4 mile from the approach end of the runway?

I don't understand... help?
I wasn't in the tower cab, so I can only generally answer. But just because an airplane is an emergency, doesn't mean tower no longer has to work other aircraft, if only to simply give instructions to keep them out of the way. Maybe the controller was checking on something momentarily. 69R crashed short of the runway, so the controller may have lose sight due to an obstruction, due to a distraction, who knows? Could be on the crash phone coordinating with the ARFF vehicles. Again, I don't see anything nefarious here.

If I may ask, what is your interest in this particular accident? Especially the details and pointed interest of the specifics? To the point of going so far as to make the comms collection of this particular accident?
 

RVSM

Member
They can make the request. And it really wouldn't be difficult to not stop in the middle of an intersection of runways, if at all possible. I see no issue with it. If 69R can do it, cool. If not, cool. Best case, two runways don't end up blocked that don't need to be. Worst case, push the airplane out of the way. I don't see anything nefarious here.
I never knew that. Of course, I'm not yet a pilot either. I've flown before, but never heard tower giving "hold short" - or any kind of post landing instruction during the most critical part of the entire approach, especially when the tower knows that an "engine out" has been declared as the reason for the need to return after departure.

It just seems a bit odd to me, that's all.

If I may ask, what is your interest in this particular accident? Especially the details and pointed interest of the specifics? To the point of going so far as to make the comms collection of this particular accident?
Yes, you may inquire. Five reasons:

a) I saw that several people here already knew the pilot personally.
b) The thread containing the NTSB report had lots of speculation and people seemed to be looking for some facts.
c) The audio track coupled to the NTSB report seemed to go one step further in helping to clear-up some missing facts.
d) No one had posted the ATC comms prior in that same thread.
e) I'm returning to aviation in general at this point in my life (will start training soon) and I've always been a student of NTSB reports, hoping to learn something that might keep me and my family alive some day down the road.

Whenever, I get a chance to link an NTSB "Factual" Report to the actual comms from ATC, I try to never let that opportunity go without exploring it and learning as much as I can. Sometimes you find discrepancies between what the NTSB reports and what the radio reports. I've read many NTSB reports that are very similar to this one as it relates to causality. Having the audio allows me to put more pieces of the puzzle together.

For educational purposes within the GA community, I can see some benefit to actually having the NTSB attach the relevant ATC audio to each "factual" report that it files. Yes, it would mean more disk space for them, but it could help people better understand the events and the "causality" more than just reading the report alone in some cases (not all cases).

I wish these things never happened at all - that would be my preference.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
I never knew that. Of course, I'm not yet a pilot either. I've flown before, but never heard tower giving "hold short" - or any kind of post landing instruction during the most critical part of the entire approach, especially when the tower knows that an "engine out" has been declared as the reason for the need to return after departure.

It just seems a bit odd to me, that's all.
It's a request. If the pilot can do it, fine. If not, fine too. I'd bet that if the situation didn't "sound" as in-control as it did over the radio, and sounded like the pilot was doing everything he could just to control the plane, the tower controller wouldn't have bothered the pilot further with any requests of the kind.

Yes, you may inquire. Five reasons:

a) I saw that several people here already knew the pilot personally.
b) The thread containing the NTSB report had lots of speculation and people seemed to be looking for some facts.
c) The audio track coupled to the NTSB report seemed to go one step further in helping to clear-up some missing facts.
d) No one had posted the ATC comms prior in that same thread.
e) I'm returning to aviation in general at this point in my life (will start training soon) and I've always been a student of NTSB reports, hoping to learn something that might keep me and my family alive some day down the road.

Whenever, I get a chance to link an NTSB "Factual" Report to the actual comms from ATC, I try to never let that opportunity go without exploring it and learning as much as I can. Sometimes you find discrepancies between what the NTSB reports and what the radio reports. I've read many NTSB reports that are very similar to this one as it relates to causality. Having the audio allows me to put more pieces of the puzzle together.

For educational purposes within the GA community, I can see some benefit to actually having the NTSB attach the relevant ATC audio to each "factual" report that it files. Yes, it would mean more disk space for them, but it could help people better understand the events and the "causality" more than just reading the report alone in some cases (not all cases).

I wish these things never happened at all - that would be my preference.
Is there any reason, since this appears to be an edited comms track, that you didn't remove the comms that didn't apply? Such as the Flight Watch comms?

You have to understand too, that the NTSB does use transcriptions of communications in it's reports, where available and applicable. It's a touchy subject for some, to listen to actual voice(s) of people they knew who were in the particular accident, especially if there was a fatality involved with same person. Cockpit Voice Recorders aren't released for that reason as well as for other reasons, hence only transcriptions are. Even though ATC comms are now something anyone can get access to, I don't know if that policy will change. Neither do I know if it should.
 

RVSM

Member
... I'd bet that if the situation didn't "sound" as in-control as it did over the radio, and sounded like the pilot was doing everything he could just to control the plane, the tower controller wouldn't have bothered the pilot further with any requests of the kind.
That makes some sense.

However, I've been sitting here listening to a fairly busy tower for an hour now and have yet to hear tower give a post-landing instruction to an aircraft that it has cleared for the approach and landing. But, I'll keep listening on my computer for a while to see if that changes.


Is there any reason, since this appears to be an edited comms track, that you didn't remove the comms that didn't apply? Such as the Flight Watch comms?
I don't have the software, or more importantly the equipment for that. Besides, the track is not stereo, it is mono. So, what you hear is literally one track with multiple voices. If the voices were coming through across multiple tracks, isolating them would be somewhat easier with the right equipment/set-up.

When I said "track," I was referring to the fact that I had to take an .mp3 file and create a video file that was acceptable to YouTube. Doing that meant creating a Video and Audio track. The only thing relevant in the "video" that I posted, was the "audio" track portion. You only get a 10 minute window on YouTube with a standard account - so I edited to capture just the relevant portions related to the incident itself.

Ask Doug, to allow the uploading of .mp3 files and that way no video would we necessary and you can listen to the entire stream. You can also visit ATC Live, and download your own copy after creating an account on their server.


You have to understand too, that the NTSB does use transcriptions of communications in it's reports, where available and applicable.
After making my post I thought to myself that it would be very odd, if the NTSB did not do everything it could to understand what happened in any accident. So, I figured they would go after the audio tracks relentlessly in almost any accident they investigate.

What I was suggesting is that they also post the audio of the comms along with their "factual" report, for the purpose of aiding the GA community and possibly furthering its education. I learn some things when I watch those AOPA Real Pilot Stories videos, where you can "see and hear" what's going on and how the pilot got into trouble in the first place. In those cases, there are no casualties and rarely any injuries, so the subject is less sensitive and more educational.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe the entire community should adopt the attitude that it is "ok" (acceptable) to learn from anything that has the power to teach, one way or the other.


It's a touchy subject for some, to listen to actual voice(s) of people they knew who were in the particular accident, especially if there was a fatality involved with same person.
You are right - that makes sense. I could have weighed that more before making the post. You are right about that point, so I'll go ahead and change the video from "Public" to "Private" on YouTube, and no one will be able to see it without requesting a password from me. That way, only those who want to view it will see it.

Cockpit Voice Recorders aren't released for that reason as well as for other reasons, hence only transcriptions are. Even though ATC comms are now something anyone can get access to, I don't know if that policy will change. Neither do I know if it should.
You have a valid point for private flights and it does make sense.

For commercial flights, I would certainly want the public to have access to CVR, FDR (Data Frame Layout & Data) and any on-board Video that might be available. Commercial Aircraft of various kinds (121 and 135) are being equipped with on-board video (security and surveillance) systems more frequently subsequent to 911.

I'm hoping to own a VLJ/LJ in the next couple of years when I'm ready for it and can handle it by myself (single pilot) and I do plan to install 24/7 security & surveillance in and around that aircraft, for in-flight as well as hanger and ramp conditions when my back is turned. So, before I even get to the airport, I'll know who and what came in contact with the airframe at anytime via notebook or notepad.
 

RVSM

Member
MikeD, has reminded me of the sensitive nature surrounding the incident involving the aircraft N6869R. Therefore, the video titled "N6869R & Provo Municipal Airport ATC" on YouTube has just been made Private. So, no one without a password can view it. It is no longer public facing.

Sorry, if the video offended anyone - I probably should have weighed that out a bit more before posting it.

Regards,
RVSM
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
That makes some sense.

However, I've been sitting here listening to a fairly busy tower for an hour now and have yet to hear tower give a post-landing instruction to an aircraft that it has cleared for the approach and landing. But, I'll keep listening on my computer for a while to see if that changes.
You are trying to compare a normal day-to-day situation, with an emergency situation such that this one was. Day-to-day, you'll hear aircraft given requests to make a certain taxiway turnoff, if able; and things like that. Those are all short term in nature. In this emergency, if the pilot of 69R had stopped his plane right in the middle of the intersection of RW 36 and 31; he would've effectively blocked two runways for awhile, as he couldn't just taxi off. So the request from ATC was both a simple one and a reasonable one to 69R: can you stop your aircraft on rollout either before that intersection, or after. Nothing nefarious or out of the ordinary there.

IAfter making my post I thought to myself that it would be very odd, if the NTSB did not do everything it could to understand what happened in any accident. So, I figured they would go after the audio tracks relentlessly in almost any accident they investigate.

What I was suggesting is that they also post the audio of the comms along with their "factual" report, for the purpose of aiding the GA community and possibly furthering its education. I learn some things when I watch those AOPA Real Pilot Stories videos, where you can "see and hear" what's going on and how the pilot got into trouble in the first place. In those cases, there are no casualties and rarely any injuries, so the subject is less sensitive and more educational.

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe the entire community should adopt the attitude that it is "ok" (acceptable) to learn from anything that has the power to teach, one way or the other.
Again, that's what transcripts are for. Sure, complete audio would be good, and the NTSB does review all audio related to any accident. But audio in and of itself, isn't that necessary to be posted/published when a transcript can suffice.

You are right - that makes sense. I could have weighed that more before making the post. You are right about that point, so I'll go ahead and change the video from "Public" to "Private" on YouTube, and no one will be able to see it without requesting a password from me. That way, only those who want to view it will see it.
It's just a consideration, for the reasons I mentioned. You weren't doing anything out of any malice, but it's just how audio like that may come out, and it also ties into one of the reasons you won't find NTSB releases of audio even in their public reports, just a transcript.

You have a valid point for private flights and it does make sense.

For commercial flights, I would certainly want the public to have access to CVR, FDR (Data Frame Layout & Data) and any on-board Video that might be available. Commercial Aircraft of various kinds (121 and 135) are being equipped with on-board video (security and surveillance) systems more frequently subsequent to 911.
You will find alot of pushback from pilot unions on this, in terms of public release of CVR audio, and rightfully so for the reasons I already mentioned. Same with even the introduction of any kind of cockpit video systems, again, rightfully so in many ways (and this is coming from me, an aviation safety guy by trade). There's no need for those to be public; their purpose is for flight safety and investigation purposes, not for public consumption and NOT to be used for any kind of punitive action or litigation. The transcript of the CVR is more than sufficient for the public to have. FDR data is already released.

I'm hoping to own a VLJ/LJ in the next couple of years when I'm ready for it and can handle it by myself (single pilot) and I do plan to install 24/7 security & surveillance in and around that aircraft, for in-flight as well as hanger and ramp conditions when my back is turned. So, before I even get to the airport, I'll know who and what came in contact with the airframe at anytime via notebook or notepad.
Whats the rush? Take your time before hopping into a jet single-pilot.
 

RVSM

Member
...There's no need for those to be public; their purpose is for flight safety and investigation purposes, not for public consumption and NOT to be used for any kind of punitive action or litigation. The transcript of the CVR is more than sufficient for the public to have. FDR data is already released.
That's an interesting point. I was thinking more about the Public's right to know, a opposed to protecting any entity from civil liability. If an aircraft comes crashing through your roof at 11pm and the entity operating that aircraft makes the claim that there was absolutely nothing it could have done to prevent the damage to your real property, or any physical injury that you might have sustained, and the CVR transcript was the only evidence of what took place on-board prior to the crash - it might be easier for the operator of the aircraft to conceal evidence that undercuts their claim. (note: whether they were liable or not, might be a different legal argument altogether)

Having the actual audio from the CVR, could/might reveal that which cannot be fully appreciated or understood from a textual transcript alone. For example: Was there an argument between members of the crew prior to the crash. A transcript could be read and then "interpreted" one way, where as having both the text and the audio would add another layer of information that could/might help to better focus the interpretation, or even change it to a different meaning.

I think more transparency in the general public domain (where the public safety is concerned) is typically better than less.


Whats the rush?
No rush:
"I'm hoping to own a VLJ/LJ in the next couple of years when I'm ready for it and can handle it by myself"

Take your time before hopping into a jet single-pilot.
Indeed. Being here is a small part of the very early stages of making those jet-dreams a reality! I've recently made other posts that are more relevant to actual flying.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
That's an interesting point. I was thinking more about the Public's right to know, a opposed to protecting any entity from civil liability. If an aircraft comes crashing through your roof at 11pm and the entity operating that aircraft makes the claim that there was absolutely nothing it could have done to prevent the damage to your real property, or any physical injury that you might have sustained, and the CVR transcript was the only evidence of what took place on-board prior to the crash - it might be easier for the operator of the aircraft to conceal evidence that undercuts their claim. (note: whether they were liable or not, might be a different legal argument altogether)

Having the actual audio from the CVR, could/might reveal that which cannot be fully appreciated or understood from a textual transcript alone. For example: Was there an argument between members of the crew prior to the crash. A transcript could be read and then "interpreted" one way, where as having both the text and the audio would add another layer of information that could/might help to better focus the interpretation, or even change it to a different meaning.

I think more transparency in the general public domain (where the public safety is concerned) is typically better than less. .
There's a reason the USAF, for example, considers certain portions of safety information in investigations to be privileged information, and not for public consumption. Thats because it protects the sanctity of the information in pursuit of safety goals. Without the ability to have non-punitive safety privilege, you'll find witnesses, players in the accident, etc; who could potentially be less than forthcoming due to fear of punitive action or other litigation against them. This necessity to have open and non-punitive channels available to allow for safety-related understanding of accidents and improvements therein, trumps the public's need to know of certain specifics of accidents. For public consumption, a separate report is issued that contains causal factors and investigative conclusions. Right now, the way business is done with the sanctity of CVR audio, and the release of CVR transcripts only, is the proper way to being doing this IMHO.
 

MercFE

Well-Known Member
MikeD hit it spot on...

While transparency would be great in many situations, it limits the ability to fact find to increase overall safety of a system. If crew members, maintainers, witnesses, or anyone else involved in an incident is afraid of reprisal, they will withhold vital information that can help prevent future incidents.

Now, this is not to say that a second investigation wouldn't be started to try to find blame... But it wouldn't be the NTSB or any of the military safety centers doing that investigation, nor providing any of their findings to it. The safety investigation results will always be censored to an extent, allowing the public to learn from the incident without giving away actionable justification.
 

RVSM

Member
I agree with the notion of increasing safety as a direct result of obtaining valued information post accident, that enables and fosters better understanding and thus, improved ways to prevent the same thing from happening again. However, wherever and whenever the public is involved, there is an express "need to know" concept that goes right to the heart of the "spirit" embedded within the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Careful, while maintaining open lines of communication among those who might be party to an incident by protecting their right to be concerned about any "fall-out" that might come there way given any "testimony" they might be able to offer, that the "greater good" is not overlooked in the short, or long-term and that no precedent is established that makes is "ok" on any level to withhold information from the public that it may need to use in its evaluation of whether or not it agrees with decisions that are finally made - decisions that may impact it down-range. Else, a slippery slope is instantiated and precious little support for hindering the publics rights will be tolerated out in the open, forcing such remedies as you might suggest here, behind closed doors and in sealed rooms where rumors might trump reality in the public.

Remember, the FAA has a dual charter: Promote General Aviation and Protect the Public. Some would say that such a dual responsibility conflicts the organization and fractures it. I tend to agree with that sentiment. Take the case of David Riggs, as just one example. Here you have an individual, operating an L-39 in U.S. airspace (public airspace) and doing it in ways that clearly violate the law (regulations) and yet the FAA somehow can't find a permanent way to prevent such abuses.

The David Riggs, story is a monumental poster child for why the FAA needs to be broken up into two separate and distinct organizations.

Now, relative to civil liability and the protection of certain kinds of "witnesses" from "reprisal" - I don't think there is a bigger case in the history of Commercial Aviation than September 11th, 2001, either on or off this continent. I won't get into why I believe that to be true, but I do understand the need for people to remain protected at all levels - in light of what they may be able to offer an investigation.

At the end of the day, one has to ask themselves what's in the best interest of The People. Because, at the end of the day, The People are all that matters, as they are the one's for whom all regulations exist, and The People are the reason why our institutions have meaning.

I love flying and I love everything aerospace and aviation. But, I love my country, my countrymen and our way of life even more. The moment you start concealing things that impact the public, where it has a right to know and/or the need to know, that's the precise moment where the slippery slope comes into view, IMO. As far as "reprisal" is concerned in a commercial setting, there are Laws that prohibit that. There are also court procedures that can be used to compel an individual to testify, even against their will. Not a pretty picture either way - but its done all the time in court rooms across America.

However, I do agree that everyone involved needs maximum protection. That's one of the cornerstones of our Constitution, even though that's NOT how law gets practiced in this country, but that's another thread altogether. ;)
 

MercFE

Well-Known Member
Don't disagree with anything stated, except one small part...

Everything should be open to the public to be investigated and discovered. However, use of safety investigations is not the place to do it. A criminal or civil action investigation is.

The two incidents that I have been a part of both caused large amounts of damage to military aircraft, which are for all intents and purposes public property. It is important for those that come after me to understand and learn from my mistakes. If I withhold that info, no one benefits. However, to use what I provide or is discovered, under the guise of a safety investigation, to hold me liable for any errors would completely undermine the whole safety program concept.

As I said before... Two investigations for an incident should be understood and tolerated. However, their paths do not need to meet.
 

RVSM

Member
...This necessity to have open and non-punitive channels available to allow for safety-related understanding of accidents and improvements therein, trumps the public's need to know of certain specifics of accidents.
Even when the Public is paying for the entire system in question?

We've been doing this for a very long time, I just don't have the opinion that its the right course for our country, in light of the spirit woven into our Constitution, or the spirit woven into the Declaration of Independence.

On matters such as pure information related to the facts of an incident involving an aircraft, I believe The People can sort out for themselves their level of interest. I doubt seriously that anybody other than pilots, or those seeking to become pilots, would even bother to visit the NTSB website to read its archives.

But, if there is information contained in the CVR that helps the public better understand how they are being protected, or how they were not protected (as the case may be), then shouldn't the public have at least the opportunity to determine that for itself - or should that kind of information be concealed from them, merely because somebody else might lose their job in reprisal - which by the way, can and should be dealt with in a court of law, on whatever grounds that such reprisal violates either State and/or Federal law?

If I'm going to err on this, then I want to err on the side where the Public is well informed, where its safety might be at risk of the causation being studied by the authority established by the Public for such purposes.

I just think that in our society right now, there is a deep crying out for more, not less transparency on many different levels where the public safety and public trust in involved, IMHO.
 
Top