And do you believe in Santa Claus ? The reason why many countries are usually disclosing the raw recorded information is to avoid the investigations to be questioned. I'm glad you believe whatever is submitted to you but what will happen if (God forbid!) one day the AAIB is releasing inaccurate info ?
When I read this report and know that the crew got rewarded as heroes I really have the feeling of a bad joke. They certainly did save the day by finally reducing the AOA when the aircraft was stalling, but that's what any pilot is supposed to do as a very basic reflex. As a result I don't see heroes but only pilots who were probably surprised after a long flight and who did their best according to their perception of the situation. But no heroic behavior (at least not in what the report is stating about retracting flaps under AP and low energy conditions and aiming 300 m beyond the threshold...). Even with fully disclosed raw information many investigation autorities did already manage to release BS, what would make the AAIB so different ?
I recommend you to read the concord report, you would then understand how easy it is to use the raw data to realize the investigators are sometimes having very curious interpretations... Welcome to neverland.
sispanys ria
Thank you for your message. In response:
- I do not believe in Santa Claus.
- "many countries" do not have the expertise to analyse the raw data, hence they may release the information to professional bodies such as AAIB or NTSB for evaluation - I believe we are fortunate to have the likes of the AAIB and the NTSB.
- I have tried to make clear that I do not believe everything, hence my evident scepticism about the apparent FAA memo, particularly initially - I try to have an open mind, even about other posters on this forum who can appear less dispassionate but nonetheless are only expressing their own genuine belief or suspicion.
- I am more concerned with the information already released and how accurate that is, since my interest is the conundrum which is the double failure condition demonstrated a minute out from landing at LHR, rather than events however interesting occurring afterwards.
- as regards your second paragraph, I have no doubt you read the report and, judging from your previous posts on this and the "BA crew gets medal" thread, you are upset that the AAIB has not published and commented more on the crew's actions - indeed, I cringe on your behalf at some of the hard (verbal) knocks you have taken.
- I believe you are mistaken in conflating your comment about "rewarded as heroes" with the AAIB, though given your belief I can understand why you are so passionate about challenging the apparent status quo.
- I appreciate your comment that the pilots "certainly did save the day", and perhaps in the maelstrom of attention after the event that was the media message, however clumsily stage-managed, that BA were trying to put across - and which the media unsurprisingly hyped as heroics.
- I note your continued challenge of the pilots' behaviour as deserving of a "heroic" standard. My gut view is that in a media age in the UK where people in the news tend to be characterised as either a hero or a villain (with no nuanced or neutral position in between), I can understand why BA, in supporting its brand and its crew, steered the story in the media towards the "hero" characterisation (by awarding a medal), even though I would be more inclined to express it in this forum as you did that they "certainly saved the day".
- I note your comments about flaps, AP and aiming point and, while I would not dismiss them, I am glad that the AAIB is concentrating on the primary issue here which is the double failure condition.
- I have few comments on this secondary issue of the impact other than to say with low energy, gear down, turbulence and a crosswind, I agree that the crew's actions saved the day by making a more than sufficiently controlled landing such that the hull survived and everyone walked away (or hobbled in the case of the person with a broken leg). I repeat that in my view to have a result like that in the circumstances they did a great job. It will not be possible to show that any other combination for landing would result with 100% certainty in an "as successful" non-fatal landing so, as a critique of the BA pilots' behaviour on the day, trying to show a better way of handling the aircraft is futile and risks becoming a mud-slinging exercise to be picked up by the media and against which the pilots concerned would have no ability to defend (not nice, and I assume why your genuine comments have at times been treated dismissively (also not nice)).
That is not to say that you are right or wrong or that another thread on low, slow, heavy commercial jet, engine out landings would not be well read or of real interest.
- I note your lack of faith in other investigative authorities but see it as having no bearing on the professionalism and internationally recognised expertise of the AAIB, and the practical point that it is working hand in hand with the NTSB, Boeing and others.
- I have read the English version of the Concorde report previously. I would highlight to you that for many the key point coming out of the report was the analysis of the chain of contributory factors leading to the fire, rather than the way in which the crew thereafter tried to keep the aircraft airborne prior to it impacting the ground. The same point applies to the priority in this investigation.
- I have not assumed that investigators cannot get it wrong and I too will feel free to question their opinions if I believe I have the time and an important enough reason to do so - I repeat though that I genuinely believe that the AAIB have had the right focus and the crew did a fantastic job, saving the day.
- thank you for welcoming me to Neverland, but I think you have the wrong person - may I also take it you are not Michael Jackson incognito?