Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
...
For the record I neither work for Airbus nor any of their clients or suppliers.
I strongly believe that sentence. If you worked for Airbus, you would have been long ago silenced, in a way or another, as I know the perception of de-service to Airbus, and dislike of your type of defense.
I prefer to think of myself as a neutral party with an inbuilt dislike of bullsh*t and preference for evidence and experimentation over hearsay.
Your not recognizing the difference between DIRECT and INDIRECT information transfer combined with the advertising of a software engineering background is again, as it was in past posts of yours a clear indication of BS.
I was privileged enough to take part in one experimental session and I'm just telling you what I learned and observed.
As far as I am concerned the BEA report information on the Airbus simulation of the AF 447 case is sufficient, and any simulation on a non-A330 may be a valuable personal experience, but cannot bring true scientific value - it's rather a source of more speculation, and self-serving argumentation.
You may pretend to be, or would like to think as "neutral", but it's so obvious were you stand. Your personal attacks, ....
The response from those determined to hold on to the "AIRBUS BAD" philosophy ....
In short, I can't help but suspect that the anti-Airbus brigade "ain't got nuthin'" - to coin a phrase - to go on here, and are simply resorting to calling out their stock phrases.
the "anti-Airbus brigade" obsession, and your self assigned mission of defending Airbus at any cost, even those elements that are scientifically indefensible, for anyone that is a professional, and wrongly extrapolating faults with certain few Airbus elements, as being applied to the entire Airbus design, is a good indication of the type of alignment you're driven by.