Google translation:
Perpignan: a failure to paint the cause of the crash
Thierry Vigoureux
24/01/2009 |
INFO FIGARO - A failure of on-board instrumentation after revision workshop seems likely and Airbus has just sent a security bulletin to all its customers on flights after revision control.
The technicians at the Bureau of Investigation and Analysis for the Safety of Civil Aviation (BEA), based on location, appear to have advanced on the scenario of the crash of the Airbus A 320 occurred at sea off Perpignan November 27 last. Seven people, pilots and aviation technicians, had died.
During the operations carried out in a paint shop Perpignan calling the aircraft leased to XL Airways Germany in the colors of Air New Zealand, sensors on the fuselage had been hidden by a layer of protection. What would make ineffective the computers and the electrical vol.Le course of this accident puzzled experts because it was theoretically impossible.
On final approach before landing at Perpignan, the A 320 reared then stalled. A maneuver meant to be impossible because the electrical flight of the A 320 automatically stabilize the plane, possibly against the will of the driver. Egregious situations are impossible. Unless the probes and sensors on aerodynamic wings and fuselage have not fulfilled their roles and are not supplied with data onboard on speed, pressure, the attitude of the aircraft, etc.. Security systems integrated with the flight controls become ineffective.
Plausible
It remains to know why these circuits measuring doubled or even tripled, not fonctionné.Ce scenario is plausible enough that Airbus had sent yesterday to its 218 airline customers a security bulletin written in collaboration with the BEA from Initial information from the flight recorders. The note, circulated throughout the world, is intended primarily to prevent a similar accident from happening and recommends preventive measures as requested by the World Organization for Civil Aviation. It is an essential guarantee for the security in air transport to grow.
The judicial inquiry should not interfere. It goes after the technical investigation and will try later to determine responsibility. Airbus also cautions about the conduct of flights made after control of maintenance operations, as was the case in Perpignan.
The manufacturer recalled the instructions on flights at low speed which should not be conducted at low altitude and give rise to a press briefing spécifique.La New zéalandaise, fueled last week by statements by the prosecutor Perpignan reporting data Technical incomplete or poorly understood, evoked the possibility of a surge engines before the accident. But this information can not be interpreted, if not viewed in the chronology of the flight.