Flyerstar
Rather than degenerate into the standard PPRUNE slanging match where everyone says how unknowlegealbe and unprofessional everyone else is, why do we not just accept that there are a number of professional pilots on here who are very experienced on type and have all have read the Airbus documentation? It is always disappointing that so many fellow professionals want to denegrate the other guy rather than actually learn something from the other.
I have never met you but am quite happy to accept that you may have a lot of knowledge technically about the Airbus. Please give me the benefit of the doubt that I may actually know something too. If I am wrong I am happy to be shown the error of my ways - I hope you feel the same.
I have no intention of entering into a slanging match with you on a public forum so if you really want to know how the approach speed function works, e-mail me and I will send you a spreadsheet that shows you. It will obviously surprise you to know that I actively searched out every known piece of Airbus documention including all FCOM bulletins before producing it. Once you have looked at that and spent some time looking rationally at the arguments, then if you still disagree feel free to sound off about my ignorance.
Tunneler
Thanks for the correction about it being 6 months rather than a year. There is also some merit in the argument that says that because there are only 3 321s on the fleet there is statistically much less chance of a tailstrike. Nevertheless, my own view is that GB should be commended for taking the steps they have to reduce the risk. I am defiinitely one of those who believe that there is not some hidden law which states accidents are inevitable. You can go to great lengths to ensure they do not happen and I believe GB has set a good example here.