BOAC wrote :
If true, this to me represents the most startling information for a long time. If true, it needs immediate investigation with the airline concerned and questions as to why it has not appeared in the safety system - or if it has, why it appears not to have been addressed. If not true then I respectfully suggest the seniors get out the red pen to avoid further distractions.
Very good point. Airplane /systems-related incidents
are spread all over the safety departments of all client airlines -at least - and the measures to implement to improve safety.
Such *information*, which I have never been appraised of could be appertained to what is generally called *malicious intent*.
Having a second reading of the letter, the only explanation that comes to my mind is that someone just imagined the CGH accident with the #2 T/L at idle -meaning an exoneration of any pilot error, but putting the blame on a faulty TLA input to the ATHR system- and then repeating -with glaring errors of interpretation - the rest of the accidents parameters. Any 12-year old with some FlightSim experience can do that.
An Airbus pilot would not make so many errors in their systems' knowledge.
marciovp,
I notice that your subsequent posts haven't answered any of my tech points.
I presume your *talented and experienced friend* is George Rock. See his blog and how he's amended some of his early interpretations of the CGH graphs. At least, he's acknowledged his basic ignorance of the 320 systems, but very honestly changed his arguments after some correspondance with 320 pilots.
I wish I could say the same about your defence of the Brazilian TAM pilots.