That is a non-sequitur. Investigators should have access to accident data regardless of whether the pilots did their job.

Root cause analysis isn't the only reason: it would be good for pilots to have this case study, as well as analysis on how systems responded to the abrupt change.

Having this data is strictly better than not having it.

> Root cause analysis isn't the only reason: it would be good for pilots to have this case study, as well as analysis on how systems responded to the abrupt change.

Yep, could be used as a "this is exactly what you do in this scenario" example for future pilots, or a "what did they do wrong" type real-world exercise for pilots to review (with no blame given to the OG pilots in this scenario for example).

Middle ground would be to have full media access for investigators, but a union rep managing a review and redaction process to have anything immaterial to the investigation redacted. This preserves both valuable data and privacy. Checks and balances.

I'd also propose that someone on the board has to be criminally responsible in case of any abuse. With asset forfeiture on the books.

Your comment would only make sense if your example of reality showed the theory was flawed. However, your example of reality is unrelated to the theory, so not sure what your point is.

That the plane landed safely is not an indication that every part of the post-incident process went well.

There could be steps that weren't followed, there could have been training gaps. There could have been secondary impacts of sudden depressurization that could have spiraled out of control, but the pilots thought on their feet to save the plane. We'd want to know exactly what they did so we could add it to the recovery process.