The BEA did nothing wrong during that investigation
They did. Local police did. Nothing to do with Asseline's lawyers.
Quote:
8. If you think vegatable pilots are bad, imagine vegetable engineers, people who never had any desire to create new things, and are perfectly happy to do little besides playing office politics. Yes – the corporate engineering is full of those...
Not when developing new products in aviation you don't.
What makes the difference between the average quality company and aircraft engineering? Holy Spirit? Provocation aside, I been there, done that, got the t-shirt: I can confirm that there *are* "vegetable engineers", including higher ranked positions, including supposed-to-be-decision making individuals. Sorry to bring the illusion of the all-too-perfect aviation back to the level of mortal beings.
Not quite, THS remained at full nose-up
You are correct, I mixed that.
Care to elaborate?
The FDR was not in BEA's possession all the time. It was never officially clarified where it had been for a couple of days
before BEA begun its investigations. Missing data where some should exist, wrong lead tape in the FDR, etc... Too much to be all accidental, no need to have a hang for conspiracy theories. You could object that it wasn't exactly the fault of BEA for not handing over the FDR to them etc., but then I extend that to the French government who was setting the rules for them, for the police, the federal prosecutor, the manufacturer. It is imperative to avoid any doubt in any such investigation, even the distant possibility of forging must be excluded.
Now we have nearly the same constellation for the AF447 investigation. But as I said, I see absolutely no indication for any irregularities this time.
Accident investigators have only the power of advice. Also their scope is limited to accident at hand.
I spoke about known incidents - so *known before* AF447. Why did Airbus extend their internal requirements against the ones from the authorities? Because they knew better and were even more careful than the authorities. EASA obviously never adapted, at least that's my understanding.
Have a go at BEA's report.
First: When stating that somebody could handle something this does not imply the statement that others don't - by the laws of logic.
Second: The other crews did not face the same situation, so not 100% comparable anyway.
Third: I referred to the captains abilities as opposed to the ones sitting in the front row during flight AF447, not opposed to other crews.
So: My point was that being a potentially great pilot (knowing intuitively how to get out of the situation once at the controls) does not automatically imply to be a good
captain who has to actively regain control. Pilot in command (captain) should be ultimately
in command, not just watching / advising. The fact that he still let the controls to the least experienced crew member when it was obviously already screwed up was bad crew management in itself.
My personal conclusion is something like that the PF indeed messed it up. But he was left alone by his captain (give comments is not enough), by his training, by crew structure, by checks, by PNF not insisting more to break his mental deadlock, by SOP (like only AP on if possible, never hand flying even in severe CAVOK), by almost everything.