Originally Posted by
CONF iture
So, please, bring up some figures
Never flown a 320-100, I did not profess to have that data. I just said that it is not always the case, such as with a high derate (up to 40% with the current EEC) or high flex takeoff (up to flex 70). I have presented the 320 FCOM reference to back myself up.
Two questions for you :
What airbus technology defect was covered up ?
What is your safety concern ?
Originally Posted by
CONF iture
other early assumption ?
I sent a PM to the person concerned.
The whole debate got childish, it keeps going in circles, your posts are a testament to that. No one is able to show that a serious or safety defect existed at the time, name the serious or safety defect that was covered supposed to have been covered up, and then state how this serious or safety defect has not resulted in a string of subsequent accidents in the past 18-20 years which required a cover up.
If a serious or safety defect exists I would be the first person wanting it to get fixed, I want to know what it is, no one is able to put a finger on it.
Originally Posted by Max Angle
Does anyone know what the original plan for the flypast was?
The Air France requirement at the time was not lower than 300' when above a runway which is suitable for landing. The two pilots were both Air France training captains, it was an assumption that they were aware of the Air France policy at the time.