Airbus crash/training flight

[big white bird]

It is hard to conceive the image of an A320 airframe with unprotected sensors pressure-washed by a kid blithely unaware he was acting in direct contravention to the manufacturer's instructions.

But it was done, and water entered the sensors.

Someone mentioned failure of the sensors' ability to withstand forced input of water. It was suggested the failure brings into question the ability of the A320 sensor seals to repel lashings of rain in a tropical storm.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the pressure coming out of a gurney.

I have a gurney at home, a Karcher. The high pressure water's delivery can strip paint. I have stripped paint with mine, marveling at the sycthe-like action of water under pressure. One's skin would come right off the feet - if you were dumb enough to point the stream at your unprotected toes.

Sadly, what appears to have happened with this accident is the alignment of a 'perfect storm' of events. That term, coined by Sebastian Junger, has already been used, but allow me to shamelessly repeat it for it's a good one, and very apt.

The wash should have been conducted properly, protecting the seals; it was not. The pilots should have known their target airspeeds for stall, given they were about to demonstrate it for real; they did not. The airplane should never have been placed in that condition; but it was.

Much as I prefer Boeings, which I've flown for 18 years, there appears to be nothing wrong with the design of the A320 sensor seals. Nor is there a fault with the stabilizer design. I don't like it, but that doesn't make it a faulty design.

If the driver of a road vehicle spun the wheel hard over at 100kph, the vehicle would most likely be out of control and quite possibly crash. It would not be the fault of the manufacturer of the vehicle anymore than it can be said Airbus are at fault for the actions of the pilots of this airplane, who took the airframe outside its design parameters.

So who is at fault? And who could have done this test? Who could have known the limitations of the stall and the A320 systems dealing with stall such that the pilot would have the requisite skills to recover?

Sorry, but the clear answer to that is any properly trained line pilot. Stall recovery is not the sole province of the test pilot. We are all trained to recover from a stall, purposely entered or otherwise.

The actions of the pilot in this accident appear to have been incorrect.

For that, you cannot blame the washer of the airplane; you cannot blame the manufacturer of the airplane; you cannot blame the seals of the sensors, and you cannot blame the design of the stabilizer, even though I agree it could be better.

One of my first jobs was flying a single engined piston for a pastoral company in central Queensland. We did a lot of things with that airplane, none of which were cattle mustering. I was not authorized for cattle mustering. Though I had an aerobatic rating, I had not been trained for the mustering of cattle.

Quite sensibly then, the Area Manager told me, a young pilot, not to allow the company's many Station Managers to pressure me into mustering, or to let them take the controls and 'have a look around' if we were on a flight to check their individual stations' distant bores.

When I left that job, my first and very memorable job, for bigger and better things, a young 21 year old pilot took over. In the first week he was there he succumbed to pressure from one of the Station Managers. The smoking hole was found the following day. That was over 22 years ago, and yet I am struck by the similarities with this unnecessary A320 accident.

Aviation is populated by many latent dangers. Many of us would like to ignore this reality. Doing so comes at a price. Recovery from a non-normal event of attitude requires a deft hand when encountered. Wilfully entering a non-normal flight regime without being fully prepared is, to my mind and from my experience, naivete or wilful negligence.

It is never both.

I've no time for sentimental notions of a fictional 'band of brothers'. The pilots of this A320 were not 21 years old. They knew better. If they didn't know better, they should not have been charged with the responsibility they had. It's as simple as that. Fallen comrades is bollocks. So is blaming Airbus. Damn the French, but not for this.

HTFU.