PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 19th Nov 2012, 16:15   #541 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,122
@CONF

Have you done as I've suggested and put some of your much vaunted evidence on AH&N?

If not, do so, and we'll see what happens.
DozyWannabe is offline   Reply
Old 19th Nov 2012, 17:10   #542 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,122
CONFiture....

"PPRuNe refuses to see Habsheim debated because the active participation of the BEA on the damage control process would be for all to see."

I cannot speak for PPRuNe, but I suggest that BEA partisanship is everywhere to see re: AF447

BEA PUBLISHED a memorandum, not an INTERIM REPORT, that was utilized by AirBus to trumpet "NO NEW MECHANICAL ISSUES FOUND IN A330"

Blatant, Unrequired and outrageous partisanship....

DAMAGE CONTROL, QED.
Lyman is offline   Reply
Old 19th Nov 2012, 19:35   #543 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,122
Partisanship against whom?
DozyWannabe is offline   Reply
Old 19th Nov 2012, 21:47   #544 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 58
Posts: 1,776
I think if it's a partisanship from the BEA ... it's will be for Airbus .. and against Air France
Logically .. as state .. what is the most feared by France ?
A critical and questioning Air France or criticism and questioning technologies and aircraft produced by EADS (Airbus)
Air France is in debt and France has nothing to gain from this company (only strikes and social disorders are the gains)
Airbus instead is a cow milk for France and its economic partners

Last edited by jcjeant; 19th Nov 2012 at 21:52.
jcjeant is online now   Reply
Old 20th Nov 2012, 05:23   #545 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by DOZY
Have you done as I've suggested and put some of your much vaunted evidence on AH&N?
I just cannot see what Habsheim has to do with that :
Quote:
Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.
Please explain ...

Is it necessary to hide a subject for lack of argumentation ?
I have already tried in :
  • Rumours & News
  • Tech Log
  • Jet Blast
CONF iture is offline   Reply
Old 20th Nov 2012, 15:44   #546 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
I think if it's a partisanship from the BEA ... it's will be for Airbus .. and against Air France
Or it could be that they're just following the evidence, as they've always done. Even a lot of the claims laid at the BEA's door from 1988 don't stand up to inspection. I don't doubt that there was significant consternation in some circles, but it does not necessarily therefore follow that pressure was applied to BEA, much less that they'd have automatically bowed to that pressure even if it existed.

[In reference to your earlier post, the raw DFDR output is supplanted in modern reports by the graphs, as they are easier to read and determine trends from - this has been the case for published reports across the world for over a decade now.]

The BEA's remit begins and ends with the technical and HF investigation - they do not brief the judicial apparatus or the press unless asked to do so, and even then they do not stray from the findings. The DGAC might, Air France might and the pilots' unions might, but on the face of what I've read and heard the BEA (like it's equivalents such as the AAIB, NTSB etc.) is not a political organisation in and of itself. Indeed, when Asseline's legal team briefed the press that the aircraft's elevators were briefly opposite his commands, the BEA actually worked to verify it (they found that he was correct in his assertion, but incorrect in terms of why it happened).

Regarding political machinations in general, while France is the nation primarily associated with Airbus, it's worth bearing in mind that the German, Spanish and (at the time) British units of the company would probably not take kindly to a unilateral whitewashing of safety issues on the part of the French, because if that were to happen and a scandal along the lines of the DC-10 affair were to develop, it would blow up in all of their faces. For this reason I believe that it did not in fact happen then and is unlikely to happen now.

The legal departments and representatives of all involved are likely to do everything in their power to minimise liability on the part of their employers and/or retainers, but that's not evidence of conspiracy - it's simply the job they are paid to do. I've said more than once that I believe the process in France where a criminal investigation is mandatory in the case of an air disaster actually works against proper understanding of the accident, because it is in the nature of the legal system to prioritise telling the best story and defending those represented against all-comers over sticking rigidly to the facts. I feel strongly that this is the reason we're still arguing over 24 year old accidents rather than moving forward - some of us even trying to apply articles of faith that they internalised all that time ago to the current situation rather than treating it as a separate case in its own right.

For the record, while I do not agree with everything Clandestino says - I feel he's more-or-less on the money with his last post (although his style is as abrasive as ever). Furthermore, I believe I am not the instigator of discord on this thread or others, I am but one "self-appointed fact-checker" of many, and in fact I don't spend as much time on here as I used to - which is why I tend to reply to a lot of things in bursts, then go away for a bit before returning some time later. It just so happened that one of these return visits coincided with the opening of this thread. The "back-seat surgeon" analogy is unfair because at no point have I ever attempted to tell a pilot how to fly, nor have I ever disputed a pilot's reasoning on anything other than a technical/engineering level.

@CONF (sorry - browser hid your post) - I think AH&N is a better fit considering that it is in fact discussion of a historical incident at this point. Don't take the front page blurb too literally, the fact is that R&N is geared towards current events, Tech Log towards specific questions of a technical nature (AF296's technical aspects are well-documented) and JB is the preferred place to simply have a hammer-and-tongs argument rather than reasoned discussion (as a result of which threads tend to get deleted there as a matter of course). Give it a go in AH&N and see what happens.

Anyways - time for a breather, let's see where this goes.

[EDIT - One last thing : Clandestino's one-word answer ("Marketing") to Boeing's retention of the yoke is at least partially correct. In this case, Boeing has a track record of going with the design requirements of the launch customer - offered a choice of sidesticks or yokes on the T7, United went with yokes, likewise the "low-tailed" 757 became the standard at the request of British Airways - originally the 757 was a T-tail design. In the event, the T7's software-controlled yoke became a differentiator and thus a selling point in the climate of the early 1990s when FBW (particularly Airbus's implementation of it) was regarded with more scepticism than it is now.]

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 20th Nov 2012 at 19:05.
DozyWannabe is offline   Reply
Old 20th Nov 2012, 16:20   #547 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 58
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
[In reference to your earlier post, the raw DFDR output is supplanted in modern reports by the graphs, as they are easier to read and determine trends from - this has been the case for published reports across the world for over a decade now.]
The DFDR listing is the source
The graphs are a transposition .. with all the inaccuracies due to their low resolution
Never better than the original for analysis.. that is to say the DFDR listing
Doze
Quote:
In this case, Boeing has a track record of going with the design requirements of the launch customer - offered a choice of sidesticks or yokes
Did Airbus offered such choice to their potential customers ?

Last edited by jcjeant; 20th Nov 2012 at 16:28.
jcjeant is online now   Reply
Old 20th Nov 2012, 16:31   #548 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
The DFDR listing is the source
The graphs are a transposition .. with all the inaccuracies due to their low resolution
Never better than the original for analysis.. that is to say the DFDR listing
Bear in mind that modern DFDRs store and pump out a lot more data than those of a few decades ago (I think your example was dated 1990) - of itself you'd probably be talking hundreds of MB of raw data which only a minority of people would be interested in, and even fewer would be able to draw conclusions from. You might want to try a writing campaign to the BEA - get enough people to do so and they may well provide it. Alternatively get the representatives of the families to subpoena (or whatever the French legal equivalent is) the data if they're not already intending to do so.

To my knowledge no other agency has found it necessary to release the raw numbers in the last decade or two and no-one has questioned the fact that they didn't - why the necessity in this case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
Did Airbus offered such choice to their potential customers ?
No - but then their business model is different (in that unprecedented flight deck commonality between types is a central plank of their strategy) and always has been.

Right - really am off for a bit now!

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 20th Nov 2012 at 16:58.
DozyWannabe is offline   Reply
Old 20th Nov 2012, 16:41   #549 (permalink)
wozzo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe View Post
To my knowledge no other agency has found it necessary to release the raw numbers in the last decade or two and no-one has questioned the fact that they didn't - why the necessity in this case?
But would it hurt to publish raw data in a machine readable format? This is 2012 and not 1990, and quite some people are able to handle and work with such datasets. Some people on these threads have demonstrated, that they have the domain and technical knowledge to produce interesting graphs and visualizations. Also, thinking of universities and researchers.
  Reply
Old 20th Nov 2012, 16:53   #550 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by wozzo View Post
But would it hurt to publish raw data in a machine readable format?...
Probably not, which is why I suggested asking for it.

It would make more sense to offer on request rather than publish for general consumption though, if only to keep bandwidth costs down.

[Gah - I really am off now!]

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 20th Nov 2012 at 16:55.
DozyWannabe is offline   Reply
Old 20th Nov 2012, 20:06   #551 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 58
Posts: 1,776
A example of report with DFDR lising data joined :
Egyptian report of the Sharm El Sheik accident from 2004
download - filecloud.io

Last edited by jcjeant; 20th Nov 2012 at 20:07.
jcjeant is online now   Reply
Old 20th Nov 2012, 23:44   #552 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,780
Quote:
Probably not, which is why I suggested asking for it.
Wake up DOZY ... The Judge withold data from the proceeding !

Load the computer at home with the fdr data and a nice video animation will play the all event.

Pseudo transparency from the BEA and Justice ...
CONF iture is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:38.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network