Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AF447: Did an Airbus death grip kill 228 people, or was it Air France’s fault?
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Rob
Apr 30, 2012, 12:10:47 AM4/30/12
to
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/04/29/af447-did-an-airbus-death-grip-kill-228-people-or-was-it-air-frances-fault/
With only weeks to go before the final report into the 2009 mid-Atlantic
Air France is expected to be published, the UK Daily Telegraph has
served up a gripping read, literally.
This is because it lays blame on the death grip actions of the pilot
flying the A330-200 that crashed with the loss of all 228 people on
board, who held the side stick controller fundamental to the control
inputs of all current Airbus airliners as hard back as he could for
almost the entire critical phase of the disaster.
This meant that the jet was flown nose high into a high altitude stall,
from which recovery was impossible while the side stick, apparently
unsighted by his colleagues, was kept in that position.
The Daily Telegraph story includes input from Boeing, which probably
guarantees that a flame war will now break out and rage on for weeks
between a Boeing and Airbus fan persons, and the barmy armies of real
and pretend airline pilots.
To blame the accident on the side stick design of modern Airbuses seems
way too facile in view of everything else that has come to light
concerning the conduct of AF447, and the outstandingly safe operation of
these designs across thousands of jets and hundreds of airlines
operating world wide.
However if read objectively, and with the preliminary reports from the
French air accident investigator kept in mind, the article also sets out
something much more obvious, which is that Air France was both the
responsible and culpable party in terms of the standard of flying
exhibited on flight AF447.
There would be very few examples among supposedly first world airlines
of any Airbus or Boeing airliner ever being flown as badly as Air France
AF447 was on that dark and stormy night, during which it encountered an
icing and transient unreliable airspeed indication situation that no
other carrier had ever found to be more than a temporary and readily
overcome challenge during a flight.
Which, in slightly more words, is where the Daily Telegraph also takes
its readers. The Airbus was poorly flown. For the two pilots, who were
in the cockpit for the critical four minutes before impact, to have
ignored 75 audible stall warnings, and so totally screwed up the flight
before the arrival of the captain from his rest break too late to
actually do anything to retrieve the situation, raises the gravest of
questions about flight standards in Air France, notwithstanding its
subsequent overhaul of its safety culture and training.
With only weeks to go before the final report into the 2009 mid-Atlantic
Air France is expected to be published, the UK Daily Telegraph has
served up a gripping read, literally.
This is because it lays blame on the death grip actions of the pilot
flying the A330-200 that crashed with the loss of all 228 people on
board, who held the side stick controller fundamental to the control
inputs of all current Airbus airliners as hard back as he could for
almost the entire critical phase of the disaster.
This meant that the jet was flown nose high into a high altitude stall,
from which recovery was impossible while the side stick, apparently
unsighted by his colleagues, was kept in that position.
The Daily Telegraph story includes input from Boeing, which probably
guarantees that a flame war will now break out and rage on for weeks
between a Boeing and Airbus fan persons, and the barmy armies of real
and pretend airline pilots.
To blame the accident on the side stick design of modern Airbuses seems
way too facile in view of everything else that has come to light
concerning the conduct of AF447, and the outstandingly safe operation of
these designs across thousands of jets and hundreds of airlines
operating world wide.
However if read objectively, and with the preliminary reports from the
French air accident investigator kept in mind, the article also sets out
something much more obvious, which is that Air France was both the
responsible and culpable party in terms of the standard of flying
exhibited on flight AF447.
There would be very few examples among supposedly first world airlines
of any Airbus or Boeing airliner ever being flown as badly as Air France
AF447 was on that dark and stormy night, during which it encountered an
icing and transient unreliable airspeed indication situation that no
other carrier had ever found to be more than a temporary and readily
overcome challenge during a flight.
Which, in slightly more words, is where the Daily Telegraph also takes
its readers. The Airbus was poorly flown. For the two pilots, who were
in the cockpit for the critical four minutes before impact, to have
ignored 75 audible stall warnings, and so totally screwed up the flight
before the arrival of the captain from his rest break too late to
actually do anything to retrieve the situation, raises the gravest of
questions about flight standards in Air France, notwithstanding its
subsequent overhaul of its safety culture and training.
Sylvia Else
Apr 30, 2012, 8:48:49 AM4/30/12
to
On 30/04/2012 2:10 PM, Rob wrote:
> For the two pilots, who were
> in the cockpit for the critical four minutes before impact, to have
> ignored 75 audible stall warnings, and so totally screwed up the flight
> before the arrival of the captain from his rest break too late to
> actually do anything to retrieve the situation,
The captain returned a little under three minutes before impact. Had he
> For the two pilots, who were
> in the cockpit for the critical four minutes before impact, to have
> ignored 75 audible stall warnings, and so totally screwed up the flight
> before the arrival of the captain from his rest break too late to
> actually do anything to retrieve the situation,
realised within the next two minutes or so that the aircraft was
stalled, the crash could have been avoided.
I will be very surprised if the final report manages to cast much light
on why neither he nor the other two pilots recognised the situation for
what it was.
Sylvia.
ventus45
May 1, 2012, 12:59:32 AM5/1/12
to
> I will be very surprised if the final report manages to cast much light
> on why neither he nor the other two pilots recognised the situation for
> what it was.
>
> Sylvia.
Not a chance Sylvia.
> on why neither he nor the other two pilots recognised the situation for
> what it was.
>
> Sylvia.
To take a leaf from the the WFC saga, think "Too big to fail".
French "national interest" comes first here, before any, and all, other considerations.
To supposedly "find" the fundamental reason for "three" minds to become so befuddled, would open way too many cans of worms, that no one in Europe can handle.
Anyone with a realistic mind knows the real causal chain, and has done from when the cvr/fdr data, as porous and as selective as it was, was released.
The good old standby verdict "pilot error" was telegraphed then.
The report, when finally released, will be huge, ie voluminous, by design.
It will concentrate on anything and everything but the real core issues.
It is being written specifically to give the media, french media in particular, as many red herrings as possible, to ensure they have orgasms over for months, all in an attempt to achieve the most important objective, as far as the french "national interest" is concerned, which is of course, to hide the truth, so as to return to "business as usual", as soon as possible.
Gregg
May 4, 2012, 3:08:46 AM5/4/12
to
The appalling attitude and arrogance of their cabin crew has already put
them on the bottom of my list.
0 new messages