View Single Post
Old 11th Nov 2011, 16:17
  #96 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 354
Talking I just settled all the arguments!

Answer Old Carthusian:
Yes by looking at the instruments. An input produces a certain pattern on your instruments and you can understand what your aircraft is doing.
Two points to keep in mind:
-There is no record of what was displayed to the PF, and thus, no proof that he had all the info he needed on his displays. There is no reason to "know" either way if he had working displays. (As we all know, pilots have vigorously resisted the suggestion to install video cameras on the flight deck, just as they resisted the addition of CVR at one time.)
-It hasn't been determined, and probably cannot be, what the poor PF meant when he said, "We have no more indications." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that many here have interpreted that to mean "no speed indications." There's no reason to assume that as gospel.
-Oh, here's a bonus third point! If PF had had a working AoA display, and he had looked at it, ya never know that 228 people might still be walking the earth today.

airtren said:
The AF 447 accident was caused by the confluence of multiple factors, that span a wide spectrum, which include a few manufacturer problems, which are revealed only in such extreme cases, as the AF447.
I'm weighing-in in support of what airtren, Machinbird, and F4 have been trying to say. As a dispassionate observer, their views make the most sense to me, and I have no AB, FBW, or Boeing axe to grind. Suggestions that such contributors are prejudiced or "anti-AB" are simply paranoid, in my view. (See airtren's comment above.) Anyone unwilling to weigh ALL possible factors is not being intellectually honest, yeah you, DW!
Organfreak is offline