This statement:
Originally Posted by
Lyman
CONFiture has a pov, one that involves BEA doing some questionable things re: reporting. I happen to agree with him.
and this one:
are logically incompatible with one another. Either you believe that the BEA are involved in an ongoing effort to shield Airbus from blame by fudging information or you don't. You cannot claim to be agnostic and hold the viewpoint in the first statement.
Don't you dare put words in my mouth - I "buy" nobody's "perfection". I just don't believe the BEA are any less independent than any other international accident investigation body you care to name.
@thermostat and Turbine D:
I'm happy to bow to those more knowledgeable, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the idea that the A320 had any specific "idiosyncrasies" regarding engine spool-up time that the crew would have been unaware of if the guidelines regarding spool-up time were known of in the B727 days.
The captain of AF296 was AF's second most experienced pilot on type - he was well aware that the aircraft would limit alpha-max if there was not sufficient airspeed to initiate a climb. I believe that he simply became so goal-focused on getting to 100ft at the runway threshold, that he didn't factor in the side-effect of expediting his descent (by throttling back to spool-down) to do so. "There but for the grace of God" is one thing, but to blame the aircraft for being inscrutable is a cop-out.