Hacker News Reader

Comment by sigwinch28 | Hacker News Reader

The rule (edit: in Europe) is now 25 hours for aircraft over a certain weight, though it is not (currently) retroactively applied to existing equipment.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/04/2023-26...

View on HN

That document is an in-progress proposal to amend a rule, no? I think there was strong opposition to this rule before this accident flight, and the blowback from the missing data here might be strong enough to be able to get it passed anyway.

It is the rule in Europe, which is mentioned in (II)(C) in the link. I failed to link it properly.

> the blowback from the missing data here might be strong enough to be able to get it passed anyway

Nice pun.

What do you think would have been gained from the CVR data in this case? Do you think pilot error had anything to do with the door-plug failure? Do you think the CVR was left running on purpose/accident?

If I were one of those pilots, the first words out of my mouth probably would have been, "what the $&#*?!" followed by whatever procedure had been drilled into me for rapid-depressurization. Given the scenario, I wouldn't lose any sleep over forgetting to shutoff the CVR in the mess of getting everyone to safety.

I'm not an accident investigator and don't know what exactly would turn out to be useful, but I think changing your intuition for why we study the CVR away from "because there might have been a large pilot error" to "so that we can learn more about how pilots react to emergencies with a goal of seeing if we can come up with process improvements" may help. If there was some aspect of the response that was not perfect, we could develop training on it for other pilots, right?

That's not what is at stake here though. CVRs are not intended for improving process like a call-center recorded line. "Both recorders are installed to help reconstruct the events leading to an aircraft accident." [ntsb.gov]

This creep of intended-use is exactly why many people oppose surveillance in the first place.

I don't understand. You're saying that the purpose of cockpit voice recorders is not to improve aviation safety via allowing a thorough investigation of accidents? If there is any other purpose, I don't know what it would be.

Companies salivating to get possible more dirt on people as part of "performance improvement"

You don't need to necessarily be looking for pilot error to want the recording. Maybe it picked up the sound of the plug separating and that could be useful. Maybe it records an alarm, a call from the cabin, whatever. Maybe the way they work the checklist for decompression reveals some problem that should lead to a change in the checklist. Maybe it corroborates or disagrees with the FDR.

Of course I think it's most likely that it wouldn't be that relevant in this particular case.

>ACTION:

>Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

>[...]

>DATES:

>Send comments on or before February 2, 2024.

Seems like it's a proposal, and not actually enacted yet?

It was enacted in 2021 for some aircrafts. Not sure what the change of that proposal is, might expand it to more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com