People so short-sighted they haven't realised that 200 years later, there is still no trial on the disappearance of a few Aborigines or the subsequent kidnapping of their children...
..and who should try a get some real air firefighting equipment (which any country in Europe with some risk of bushfire has ).
Errrr, I think you may find that Nouvelle Zelande is about 1200 miles from your point of reference. What was that about myopia....????
While we are off-topic and French-bashing...............the only 20th century terrorist act in NZ was the French bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour ( we were not at war with the French at the time)
Glad you said "in the XX th century". Of course that act pales when compared to the appropriation of the native population's land. In the 19 th century if I'm not mistaken.
Quote:
Thx for another example how this country is doing EVERYTHING they can to protect their economy.
And of course, nobody else but the French do that !
Glad you said "in the XX th century". Of course that act pales when compared to the appropriation of the native population's land. In the 19 th century if I'm not mistaken.
Given that you've just confused Australia with New Zealand (Aborigines, fires, etc) you should probably quit while you're ahead rather than continuing to display your ignorance.
My initial reply was for someone who has "SYDNEY" as his location. Sydney, Australia ? As for the New Zelanders, I don't think that I am that ignorant. Nor prone to the propaganda against the French that's rife there. As for the Rainbow warrior bungling, I would agree the operation was uncalled for, and the death of the journalist unfortunate. Shouldn't do that to a "friendly country" - which, in other circumstances, has absolutely no qualms spying on its "allies" by participating in the Echelon ops. But I'm a pacifist. Let's solve the dispute on a rugby field, preferably in the semi-finals of a world cup, shall we ?
Quote:
Lemurian, Hetfield is neither Australian or in Sydney. Think goose-stepping, Corporals and next door.
Since you apparently know the character of the froggies, any idea why 88% of those responding to a newspaper not far from Perpignan say that the truth will not come out of the hearings taking place into the AZF explosion in France in 2001?
I'm not responsible for the rumors and the hype around that trial. Too many lives and broken families and a thirst for some responsibility are at stake. Now, to paint the whole system with a big brush and call this country a banana republic is at least far-fetched, just good for the idiots who can't even spell French as F.R.E.N.C.H . (I know, "fish" can be spelled as "ghoti" !)
On the subject of this thread, I'm afraid that the findings won't be to the taste of a few people : 1/- Airbus Industry hasn't issued a single paper about a technical defect (be it soft or hard ). 2/- If it's not an accident caused by an airplane failure, what could it be ? And maybe, just maybe, the delay in publishing a pre-report is due to some extensive discussions between all parties involved as to where to lay the cause (s).( If I remember correctly, the investigation involves the US, NZ and Germany, too).
As a result, operators are obliged to define for themselves the programme and the operational conditions for these flights in their operations manual, without necessarily having evaluated the specific risks that these flights may present.
The investigations initial findings brought to light the fact that there is a great diversity in the description made by operators of non-revenue flights, in the context that they establish for the preparation and execution of these flights, and in the selection and training of pilots.
This diversity, along with the almost total absence of any indications or standards on non-revenue flights, can also lead to more or less improvising the performance of tests or to performing tests or checks in inappropriate parts of airspace and/or during flight phases with a high workload.
Quote:
Consequently, the BEA recommends:
that EASA detail in the EU-OPS the various types of non-revenue flights that an operator from a EU state is authorised to perform,
that EASA require that non-revenue flights be described precisely in the approved parts of the operations manual, this description specifically determining their preparation, programme and operational framework as well as the qualifications and training of crews, and
that as a temporary measure, EASA require that such flights be subject to an authorisation, or a declaration by the operator, on a case-by-case basis.
Last edited by RevMan2 : 24th February 2009 at 20:05.
What happened to the AoA sensors 1 and 2 (see page 33 of the report, lowest parameter). For the last 40 minutes of the flight no more changes. Not a word about this in the report. Why did the FAC1 and 2 fail ? This report raises more questions than it gives answers.
Lot's of similarity with the ASX DC8 crash in West Virginia about 11 years ago.
I raised the same question about that crash.
Crews who have sucessfuly conducted tests don't often consider the corner they can get into when they try the same maneuver too low and in poor altitude/attitude awareness.
That CVR showed complete confidence until the terrain call sounded.
Lot's of similarity with the ASX DC8 crash in West Virginia about 11 years ago.
Yes.....both aircraft apparently stalled and the crew failed to recover from it. However, if there had not been a need to "check the alpha floor protection" in the XL aircraft, there would not have been an accident. In my mind, it's another strike against FBW aircraft.
Just read the report and as a non-airbus specialist I do not quite follow what happenned in the last minute : why so many things apparently failed or were they disconected on purpose for the test ? (or a mixure of both ) . If somebody with more knowledge on airbus laws could answer that would help (me at least) .
A (small ) contributing factor is the ATC reaction to the original PLN. The plan was standard IFR one with only mention in field 18 of Training/ferry flight.
The reaction not to allow the required requests ( involving serie of 360s) probably forced the crew to shorten their programme , and perhaps pushed the crew to do certain things in this low altitude approach phase. ( the partial CVR release shows clear pressure to the XL captain from the NZ crew to perform those low speed tests)
There I agree with the BEA recomendation on the adequate planning of such flights. I would even add that it is more than wise to advise ATC BEFORE of what you intend to do. A simple phone call to the ACC Bordeaux prior departure , would have probably eased, if not solved the problem.
I had to deal with such requests many times, and we always tried to find a solution , sometimes involving another route/area or time to perform the tests. Of course when possible, making a proper request 3 days before via fax would guarantee a specific area reserved for this for the duration of the test. While I agree this is not always possible, I think in this case, as it involved the positioning of NZ crews, the 3 days notice could have most probably been done.
if there had not been a need to "check the alpha floor protection" in the XL aircraft, there would not have been an accident. In my mind, it's another strike against FBW aircraft.
I wish that you hadn't said that
Most of your posts are positive and supporting of an open mind
Linear Mode
