Originally Posted by
jcjeant
If Airbus make some modifications on their aircraft after the AF447 accident (related to) ... this will be the explicit recognition that their plane(s) had problem (s) (was not sure) before the accident ...
So in effect .. this will not be beneficial for Airbus and may have unfortunate consequences for Airbus at the trial (even if their answer is "we don't know before")
Not really - the report acknowledges pre-existing faults with the pitot tubes, which is the reason Airbus was charged alongside AF.
And it's in contradiction with their former declaration in the press ...
Not true - the declaration was notably specific, and stated that there was no *mechanical failure* over and above the pitot tube problem that was already known. There was no mention in that declaration of possible contentious design issues or unforeseen human interface problems. The statement did not state that the aircraft was perfect - merely that it behaved as designed. Whether that design still stands up in the face of the other evidence is open to question.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
Show us where. Both stall cues please. From the CVR. Not the DFDR. In evidence, and acknowledged by the pilots....
The presence of the cues versus acknowledgement by the pilots are two separate issues, as I'm sure you well know. The CVR proves that they missed several obvious cues - both electronic and aerodynamic.
This is not to say that they were bad pilots, simply that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.