Blind,
I was responding to the hundreds of posts rubbishing us.
And I have also quite a few pieces of garbage to throw inside your garden.
Arrogant, me ? what about them ?
What about the supercilious racialistic gems that are the gist of
THIS THREAD in particuliar, so many that it's very difficult to know what it is about ?
-An initial hard landing, reported but not really taken into account ?
-A return for a stuck landing gear ?
-or the maintenance procedures ?
-... or something else ?
From especially the country that really shouldn't try giving lessons on maintenance (seem to remember a -10 losing en engine, or maybe I'm dreaming ) or some really outlandish repairs on an another -10 reverser, causing the loss of another aircraft, or some extraordinary airliner flying technique with the rudder, really great !
And I haven't seen your do-gooder self defending the guys at Annecy or wherever.
So please, spare me your sanctimonious sermon and get a look at what you are, in reality : A bunch of biggots who should know better, if they really are the professionals they claim to be.
And we certainly do not want them.
And the worst is that management is filled with likes from either the same squadron, school or old boys club (masons). Many of which I would not trust to park my car let alone to fly me.
And now the absolute worst :
French freemasons conspiracy ! inside the airline cause important safety issues!!!
Why don't you get a real life ?
You cannot compare accidents with acts of terrorism.
Why not ? It's about, if I understand this thread correctly, how many people were killed flying a given airline, how often they lose aircraft... and , very sorry to say it, but some countries are in a very different league.
tell us about the AF 777 RTO in LOS or the AF 747 into a lagoon
Let's the 747. Came from a totally unknown 744 idiosyncracy ( the root is idiot, you might notice ) whereas with one flight director on, you had an auto go-around at MDA. I have a feeling that the honours are shared between the crew and good old Boeing in this case. and yes, that crew was slightly dysfonctioning... but still...
As a matter of fact, a few posters tried to put things into the correct perspective :
Quote:
A few facts :
1° Hard landing at CCS reported by crew
2° No report 15 generated ( neither automatically nor available in the system).
3° Two ground engineers perform an independant inspection according to information 1 and 2.
4° The F/O performs a throrough preflight according to info 1°
5° Incident with flight CCS-CDG
6° Next day, at power up of the aircraft a report 15 for the leg CDG-CCS is emitted and available.
A few more facts on point # 5 :
- after take off : landing gear did NOT retract ;
- aircraft remained in "ground mode" : no pressurisation ; outflow valves fully open etc...
In this specific case I fail to see anything wrong with "CRM" or "pilot handling".
Neither do I, actually.
I think that these posters were slightly , very slightly ignored.
Why not ? French bashing is the favourite sport in this forum.
Hey, Joe, you forgot to give us some comments on the absolute world record holder for runway excursions.
Till you do, bye bye !
