Err, Dozy, bis47 said
software problems; not hardware problems like doors.
bis47
Airframe manufacturers DID cut corners in the past.
[Documented facts ... with authorities complicity]
Airbus software got thousands of "improvements" along the years ... Improvements, or corrections? An sure enough, the specs were not set with proper user inputs ...
Business is business ...
The quote below is from Wikipedia on aerospace software development problems where mysterious software "new loads" showed up on everybody's airbuses due to non-responsive engines reportedly before/after this accident
Air France Flight 296 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A320 operation anomalies
Third-party investigations into the crash dispute the official findings.[2] Captain Asseline asserted the altimeter read 100 feet (30 m) despite video evidence that the plane was as low as 30 feet (10 m). He also reported that the engines didn't respond to his throttle input as he attempted to increase power. The month prior to the accident, Airbus posted two Operational Engineering Bulletins indicating anomalous behaviour noted in the A320 aircraft. These bulletins were received by Air France but not sent out to pilots until after the accident:
[edit]OEB 19/1: Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude
This OEB noted that the engines may not respond to throttle input at low altitude.
[edit]OEB 06/2: Baro-Setting Cross Check
This OEB stated that the barometric altitude indication on the A320 did not always function properly.
These malfunctions could have caused both the lack of power when the throttle was increased, and the inability of the crew to recognize the sharp sink rate as the plane passed 100 feet into the trees.
[edit]Investigation irregularities
According to French Law, the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder are to be immediately retrieved by the police in the event of an aircraft accident. However, the recorders were taken by the civil aviation authorities and held for 10 days until they were finally confiscated. When the recorders were returned, they had been physically opened and the magnetic tape may have been tampered with. It could not even be verified that they were the original recorders. The four seconds of recording immediately prior to the crash were missing. In view of this, a judicial report alleged that the aircraft's flight recorders could have been tampered with shortly after the crash.[1]
.
Any assertion that software development teams can't make development mistakes is patently absurd. Anybody who's subscribed to AW&ST knows aerospace has experienced a lot of these over the years. Even NASA lost two mars missions due to schoolboy errors in not converting values.
Here is the video of the Tourlouse, Frace A320 accident in 1988. Although denied by airbus, the crew stated in AW&ST in 1995 that they shoved the power all the way to the firewall and nothing happened. If this had been a cable 747-200 everybody would have lived, because it wasn't up to a fadec computer to schedule a gradual EGT longevity spoolup. Also considerable overboost to clear the trees is possible with the old hydro-mechanical cable design.
Overboost for emergencies is not possible with FADEC. Better to cook the motors and clear the trees imho. But your HAL-9000 FADEC doesn't know that.
YouTube - A320 Airbus Down (2 of 2) (Mulhouse, France - 1988)
The above post is all just my opinions only.