flywithjohn

Correct, actual recordings are seldom released.

cardiomd

This is largely in response to Delta 1141, which IIRC was the last one to have the CVR broadcast, for those of you old enough to remember (it was the late '80s). The discussion then was the exact one we are having now, but prior to that time CVR recordings, like 911 tapes are currently, were considered public and in the public interest (because they affect so many people) and essentially all released to news media.

The egregious and graphic nature of 1141 prompted the NTSB to release only transcripts since the late 80's... Prior to that CVR audio was, by default, widely released.

For the young and (hopefully academically, not just morbidly) interested that weren't around for the original broadcast, there are still audio archives of 1141 and earlier flights on the internet. This was chilling when listening to it as a teenager starting to learn to fly. -_-;

delta airlines flight 1141 - actual recorded cvr audio
(warning, graphic audio)

Update - I deleted the link as I listened to it again and it is quite disturbing. Search Google if you are interested and want to find it.

WhistlePig

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the judge has made an in limine ruling that the recording itself may come in. This is not unusual in wrongful death torts. The evidence is relevant to the plaintiff's claim of [negligence] and relevant evidence is generally admissible unless it is hearsay not covered by an exception, excessively duplicitous, or if its probative value is outweighed by an exception in favor of its exclusion, in this case evidence that is is unfairly prejudicial to the defendant.
Getting it admitted is one thing, getting it before the jury is quite another. Plus the case could still settle, move to mediation (which may be required as a step to encourage settlement and avoid the cost and delay of litigation) or the settlement agreement depending on the amount of coverage and the offer to the plaintiffs may require the insurance company to settle and deter litigation.
However if it does litigate, portions of the tape could be helpful in determining damages although there will be several arguments outside the hearing of the jury on this evidence. In any case this ruling has very limited application and is not the same as releasing the CVR audio to the public. I do not expect this case to get anywhere near an actual trial. Sealed settlement more likely and more appropriate.