[QUOTE=tengineer1;189757] Why does that piece of paper have more protection and “rights” than a human being?[/QUOTE]
That’s funny … it was a rhetorical question, right?
If you had as much money as a corporation and owned as many politicians you would have as many rights as they do. Now shut up, get back to work and pay your taxes.
NTSB has the VDR in their possession as is required by law. They are not allowed by law to release the audio, they are allowed however to release the transcripts and they have said they intend to do that.
According to the link provided by Jamesbrown here while the transcript is useful the audio itself is considered to be of little or no use in determining the cause.
From the article: - CVR is cockpit voice recorded.
The content of the cockpit conversations is not “privileged” from communication outside government accident investigations, but the playing of actual CVR tapes is, and must remain so. What was said, and what happened are readily ascertainable from transcripts and other publicly available data.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;189769]NTSB has the VDR in their possession as is required by law. They are not allowed by law to release the audio, they are allowed however to release the transcripts and they have said they intend to do that.
According to the link provided by Jamesbrown here while the transcript is useful the audio itself is considered to be of little or no use in determining the cause.
From the article: - CVR is cockpit voice recorded.[/QUOTE]
That’s the intention… Of course if that were truly the case, the NTSB would only receive a transcript attested to under notary to support investigation! I mean, if the audio doesn’t mean anything then that should suffice, right? But it does matter and audio provides loads of background information of potential relevance… and for the folks who want to hear it and can iterate an argument, there is always a lawyering solution:
I noted that in the news story about relatives requesting sVDR audio, two of the three named were not family of crew listed in the settlements already agreed. Avoiding the use of NTSB reports, and recordings in damages proceedings was the point of these laws to avoid tainting a pure investigative function with parties seeking ‘damages’ based on pain and suffering, which audio may support (and even enhance, “Hearing his/her voice made me share in the pain and suffering! Even though I demanded to be allowed access, you caused this!”). Not that that’s what the quoted family members are seeking, I do take their comments at face value and am sure they will forego any damages related issues for the opportunity they seek to prove that…
And, Tengineer—you do have the same rights. So I’m not sure what you mean about corporations having more rights. More economic power? Surely. More rights? No, just the same amount as a living breathing person, and that’s the problem. Your vehicle event data recorder info is yours (see Driver Data Privacy Act of 2015). And it can be ordered produced like any corporate info in the right situation/conditions. Of course, you probably signed a form with the insurance company giving that corporation full access, but who could fault you? They have more power.
The article says that the transcript and other data compared to the audio is “considered to be of little or no use in determining the cause”, not that they would be of no use whatsoever. I would think that the transcripts would include any useful information such as the sound of alarms going off and the like.
That’s just regarding the NTSB cause, what the families’ and other lawyers want with the VDR data for other uses is not something I’d know much about. It’s my understanding that the NTSB’s finding (the cause) are not useable in court however that information they collect is.
[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;189770]
And, Tengineer—you do have the same rights. So I’m not sure what you mean about corporations having more rights. More economic power? Surely. More rights? No, just the same amount as a living breathing person, and that’s the problem. Your vehicle event data recorder info is yours (see Driver Data Privacy Act of 2015). And it can be ordered produced like any corporate info in the right situation/conditions. Of course, you probably signed a form with the insurance company giving that corporation full access, but who could fault you? They have more power.[/QUOTE]
Which of course is the point. A piece of paper has more power than you as a human. Should I not agree to sign the paper an insurance company asks me to sign I cannot get insurance and legally drive which is by design. There was a famous statesman in the USA who many years ago was against the formation of corporations. His argument was he could hang a human for malfeasance but not a piece of paper. Trillions of dollars of fraud have since gone without being prosecuted.
I didn’t realize that the link JB used was a different one. It’s about the Coglan Air crash CVR. In that case a judge compared the audio to the transcript and ruled that there was sufficent cause to allow the tapes to be heard. Seems like basically used to try sway blame from the crew to the company.
Bottom line seems to be if someone can convince a judge that there is good reason to release the audio TOTE will not be able to stop the release.
Modern flight data recorders show a lot of technical information and flight voice recorders work in a quiet environment.
Voice and data are compared in a time scale (to the second) to put cause and effect in the right order. Be it a simple click of an instrument, an alarm, a short ‘shit’, a discussion or an order (false or misinterpreted).
General sounds inside a ship in a hurricane and a very basic data recorder may not facilitate this comparison.
This forum seems to agree that the main cause of the ship’s loss was being where she should not have been.
This decision was taken long before the end. A mainly intellectual work and brain waves are recorded nowhere…
[QUOTE=Urs;189846]Modern flight data recorders show a lot of technical information and flight voice recorders work in a quiet environment.
Voice and data are compared in a time scale (to the second) to put cause and effect in the right order. Be it a simple click of an instrument, an alarm, a short ‘shit’, a discussion or an order (false or misinterpreted).
General sounds inside a ship in a hurricane and a very basic data recorder may not facilitate this comparison.
This forum seems to agree that the main cause of the ship’s loss was being where she should not have been.
This decision was taken long before the end. A mainly intellectual work and brain waves are recorded nowhere…[/QUOTE]
I agree that much of the voice data may be of poor quality or perhaps unusable. The NTSB has said this:
The bridge audio from the morning of Oct. 1, captured the master and crew discussing their actions regarding flooding and the vessel’s list. The vessel’s loss of propulsion was mentioned on the bridge audio about 6:13 a.m. Also captured was the master speaking on the telephone, notifying shoreside personnel of the vessel’s critical situation, and preparing to abandon ship if necessary
One thing that should be clear is the VHF conversation with the El Yunque, as well as the one call to the DPA which was not recorded shoreside, there are however the DPA’s notes of that converstaion.
The NTSB has said that the voice data was only a small part of a very complex investigation, the most complex they have done in many years. I suspect that the NTSB has already collected and organized a great deal of information. A overlay of the weather with the ship’s positon and times might yield a great deal of information. Investigators have also been aboard the El Yunque to examine the lashings. A calculation of the approximate max breaking force can be done, perhaps a simulation can be done to determine the acceleration given the wave height, wave peroid and rolling period will give some estimates regarding cargo shifts as well as survivability limits.
[QUOTE=Urs;189846]
This decision was taken long before the end. A mainly intellectual work and brain waves are recorded nowhere…[/QUOTE]
This is the graphic from the hearing I’ve seen a lot. It seems inexplicable that the El Faro would follow such a track into Joaquin.
I’m not by any means trying to make excuses for anyone but if the forecast positions and wind fields are plotted (which I’ve done) instead of looking at the positions alone, take into account that close margins may have been standard operating procedure given the fact that the El Yunque encountered 80+ kts of wind and the possibility that the El Faro may have been using an inaccurate postion/forecast and the close encounter becomes less inexplicable.
I am not a trained map reader. To me this chart looks like they didn’t begin to feel the storm until about 530 Zulu. And the storm seems to have begun to move more slowly prior to that. So if they had bad data about how the storm was moving, the best guess might have been that they would pass behind the storm.
These positions of Joaquin seem to come from NOAA’s ex post analysis >>>
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL112015_Joaquin.pdf
They analyze the difficulties they had with the track forecasts; Joaquin was one of the rare hurricanes with non-tropical origins.
They give also the ‘best track positions and intensities’.
It shows the center some 15 NM south of the one in the warnings (but inside their error margin). Landfall on Samana Cay was at 1200Z.
El Faro must have drifted through the center (there was not yet a clearly formed eye).
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;189856] It seems inexplicable that the El Faro would follow such a track into Joaquin.
[/QUOTE]
If they thought they were behind the centre at 5 Zulu; started to be unhappy with the feel of the weather at that point; and started to deviate to the north; to go, as they thought, further behind it (as this plat shows)… Then they steered directly into the heart because Joaquin was slower that they estimated. I would have done the same thing if I thought that storm was moving faster than it was.
[QUOTE=Emrobu;189862]If they thought they were behind the centre at 5 Zulu; started to be unhappy with the feel of the weather at that point; and started to deviate to the north; to go, as they thought, further behind it (as this plat shows)… Then they steered directly into the heart because Joaquin was slower that they estimated. I would have done the same thing if I thought that storm was moving faster than it was.[/QUOTE]
Couple of things. Go back and read the bottom of post 48. It seems there was very little chance they had the information being displayed on the chart in this thread. In another El Faro thread KC and others have shown which forecasts showed what at the times they were published vs the vessels actual position. As I recall the short story is they were cutting it close but intending to pass south/west of it. Think I saw one forecast from the other thread that showed it never turning to south. The other thing to keep in mind is that for the latter part of that track shown here they did not have propulsion and I would guess were not steering anywhere to avoid anything least of all towards where their forecast may have shown it to be going. But I am not a “map” reader either.
[QUOTE=KPChief;189866]Couple of things. Go back and read the bottom of post 48. It seems there was very little chance they had the information being displayed on the chart in this thread. In another El Faro thread KC and others have shown which forecasts showed what at the times they were published vs the vessels actual position. As I recall the short story is they were cutting it close but intending to pass south/west of it. Think I saw one forecast from the other thread that showed it never turning to south. The other thing to keep in mind is that for the latter part of that track shown here they did not have propulsion and I would guess were not steering anywhere to avoid anything least of all towards where their forecast may have shown it to be going. But I am not a “map” reader either.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what happened on the [I]El Faro[/I] and I don’t know what they were using for weather info but here is what I did:
For the afternoon before the departure I plotted the position, forecast positions and looked at the wind field for Joaquin (on the 28th) and considered if the planned track could be justified. If looked at without hindsight I don’t think that the decision at that point is entirely unreasonable.
I plotted the forecast for each morning and evening, the first forecast that is very difficult to justify standing on is the one at 30/2100Z, however even then the forecast wind speeds is about what the [I]El Yunque[/I] encountered. The forecast at 01/0300Z shows Joaquin almost on the [I]El Faro’s [/I] track and the only plausible reason for not taking action at that point is that they did not recieve or did not plot that forecast, or at least it appears they did not respond to it.
Again I am not trying to justify or excuse, just trying to look at it in a perspective that makes a little more sense.
NTSB Press Release
11/30/2016 - NTSB Opens Docket for El Faro Investigation, Holds Press Briefing
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20161130.aspx
Can someone please translate this little snippet into English from lawyerease?
Sounds like people have to wait until Dec 13th 2016 at 9:30 a.m to find out what they will say.
This is what will be released:
The docket will contain only factual information about weather, engineering, survival factors, and data from the El Faro’s voyage data recorder. The docket will also contain the detailed transcript from the voyage data recorder’s audio recording
Remember it is an S-VDR - So the results in the near future will be interesting.
As per Dutchie post:
The S in S-VDR stands for ‘simplified’, intended for use on older ships which did not have equipment with a modern digital serial interface, just the bare minimum was required. Old equipment can be modified to provide for a serial output but at extra cost. It was a kneefall to owners of old ships to exempt them, purely for economic reasons. Only old passenger ships have to carry a full VDR, thus the equipment has to be modified.
Mandatory S-VDR Signal
List:
• Data & Time (GPS)
• Latitude & Longitude (GPS)
• Speed (Speed log)
• Heading (Gyro)
• Bridge & VHF Audio
• Main Radar (substitute AIS if Radar is impossible to record)
The El Faro’s S-VDR, as far as I know was not connected to the ship’s propulsion, Bailey board, engine room alarms, water tight doors, fire doors, hull openings and you name it. Too expensive.
I expect that the eye of the hurricane can be seen on the recovered radar screen pictures so they must have known the distance towards the eye. Probably more information can be extracted from the radar pictures such as the wave direction and heading of the ship. When the radar screen turns black would indicate the time when the water ingress into the wheelhouse took place.
NTSB states that they collected weather data so that would probably mean that the anemometer was working after all or do they have other means?
[QUOTE=DeepSeaDiver;192916]Sounds like people have to wait until Dec 13th 2016 at 9:30 a.m to find out what they will say.[/QUOTE]
ain’t you a bright cookie, child
