PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Air NZ Perpignan crash reaction
View Single Post
Old 6th Jul 2010, 05:47
  #34 (permalink)  
framer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,102
Received 495 Likes on 133 Posts
About the A320 crash;

As with any crash like this there will be many links to the chain and because most people (in the industry anyway) know this full-well, I don't understand why people want to single one out in isolation.
There is a lot to learn from this and I think it would be better to identify a list of what we think the 'causal factors' are and address each one of them.
Here are the things I think need attention based on the interim report;

1/ The test was performed by pilots with no training specific to that test and guided by a pilot with two sim sessions of specific training. (How can the PIC make an accurate assesment of the guidance being offered if he isn't trained for that test) The fact that Airbus have introduced a five day course indicate to me that they think it was a factor, if not in the execution of the maneuver, then in the decision to do it when they did.(would the German Captain have conducted the test at 3000ft if he had completed the five day course?)
2/ XL Airways staff submitted an inaccurate flight plan. This is obviously not what caused the aircraft to crash but I believe it still needs addressing . Do flight plans for 'flight tests' need to be submitted by the PIC? Have airlines cut costs too much in these areas etc.
3/ Europe Aero Services released the aircraft apparently with unservicabilities, what was the error chain within that organisation?
4/The aircraft was intentionally slowed to around 100kts and the test carried out 7000ft below the recommended altitude (shortly after ATC had given them speed control of 180kts), without a clearance from ATC.What combination of commercial pressure, GHI, and ambiguous command environment lead to this action being taken? The Captain was clearly unsure of whether it was wise to do the test but he did it. Why? Thats a CRM PHd right there in itself.

All of these things and probably many others had to occur for the accident to happen in the way that it did (who knows if they would have recovered from 10,000ft), so rather than saying "It was so and so's fault", we should acknowledge that it was a result of many peoples actions or omissions and try to improve the system. Thats what I reckon anyway.
Framer
framer is offline