Originally Posted by
bearfoil
adieu Doze
Wait - come back here- we're not finished.
Nefarious? The only thing I accuse the agency of is bias. As such, I believe it is equal to manslaughter, regardless the presence of fraud or no.
And I say again, would a biased agency be hauling AF across the coals for failing to train their pilots correctly?
Let's start with the technical issues you present:
Look away from this current state of affairs. The Probes? Identified as problematic, and suspected of many episodes of intake to UAS. Rejection of AHI? BUSS?
Airbus put out a service bulletin and AF implemented it, but did not expedite it. BUSS was a system developed to assist with the pitot problems, and was still very new at the time this accident occurred - I don't know how take-up has progressed since then.
An apparent and outrageous ignorance of high altitude flight with untrained Pilots (That is the charge). This is outright negligence.
And Air France will answer it. This is nothing to do with the aircraft at this point.
It cannot be seen another way. And yet the galling (gaulling) nonchalance: "perhaps a study of the need for AoA?"
AoA indications were available in the form of FPV display. Whether that usage was trained as such or not I don't know.
I fear I have been crying wolf for two years; since he has not gobbled our young quite yet, "I see conspiracies." The wolf's jaw is full of blood, yet I have been overreacting?
My skin is 4 gauge dermis, and critics don't bother me. I have tried, and if I cannot convince you of shortcomings in the approach (unstable?), I have given up.
Shortcomings in what approach? The Airbus control philosophy? I'm really having trouble understanding your point and I really want to.