vanHorck / Takata
Other forums can deal with the Seven Years War of 1756-63 and the rise and hegemony of the English language (even as spoken by our American cousins "over the pond") as the "global" language(!), so let's focus on Takata's "discipline" good point (well made). AF had 3 hull losses in 9 years, each where there have been not insubstantial CRM issues to varying degrees. But I cannot see where the use of the French tongue per se (as opposed to the over colloquial use of any language) has ever been a contributing factor to the hull loss (as opposed to a nuisance to non-French speakers in air accident reports!). If either the PF or PNF on AF447 had diagnosed the problem, it would have been conveyed to the other and to the CDB. There is nothing in the CVR so far disclosed, any more than anything in their respective flying history and experience, to suggest other than F/O 37 should have been PIC in CDB's absence (as PNF in LHS). I am really struggling to get "my head around" the entire "relief" pilot regime that was in force. I can see the benefit of a CPT having the discretion to select a PIC, e.g. a longserving F/O unsuitable to ever become a CPT or a less experienced but still experienced "high flyer" of a F/O heading upwards, but I can see nothing to indicate why F/O 32 should not have been under F/O 37. The latter should not have been "nagging", as one post (I think accurately) described his instructions to the PF.
Last edited by Welsh Wingman; 5th Aug 2011 at 23:10.