Originally Posted by Graybeard
How come BEA didn't know the takeoff cg was 23% at time of first report? Why didn't they do your math?
23% is actually mentioned on P18 in the first interim report.
To be honest, I didn’t do any math, just practical observation. Maybe our BEA Experts will comment on how their estimated CG was that far …
Originally Posted by LandIT
it probably already is due to modified UAS procedures promulgated
Hopefully guys on the flight decks are discussing the event, but on the procedure side, nothing has changed. The very same confused UAS procedure remains … and remains ...
Originally Posted by takata
In our AF447 case, with a triple ADR fault, those protections are lost as well, and it seems very bad as they could have prevented this crash.
Where do you get that certainty of a triple ADR fault from ?
To the contrary, Low and High Speed Stabilities may well have been available.
I still believe that a BEA hastily release of raw data would have caused more harm than good. Many things really need to be checked and cross-checked before reporting them to the public. Without expert analysis, it may be very harmful to everybody. Any inquiry needs time, patience and in depth processing in order to avoid mistakes and wrong conclusions.
Conclusions, whatever they are, whenever they come, belong to the BEA, but thinking has to belong to everyone.
Right now, the real ones to suffer are the victim's families , and especially the pilot's families, thanks to the last BEA note ...
Forget about the public, forget about us, we're not suffering we're just technically captivated, victim's families are ... and it appears they are also the ones to request the data.