Originally Posted by BOAC
We have already seen the fallacy of the '2 out of three' sensors voting at Perpignan.
"We" that you are referring to have seen the fallacy of voting because they have been totally focused on bizarre fault caused by multiple failure of common sense, which lead to non-adherence to maintenance procedures and to totally improvised and unprepared test flight, to exclusion of everything else. "We" seemingly have no clue about either normal operation of FCS or certification scope. Voting is designed to turn single point failures (which we can't prevent from happening, only reduce the probability) in total non-events. It is not intended to beat the technical genius who thought there's nothing special about rinsing the aeroplane with pressure washer, so didn't follow the procedure or pilot suffering from unfounded overconfidence who decided to do low speed protection test during approach at 4000ft without calculating the speeds at which the protection should have kicked in. He would have got away with it if it wasn't for shoddy washing.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
I think you are likely a very competent pilot, one whose name on the roster might encourage other pilots to ask for a switch.
How did this ad hominem contribute to discussion on AF447?
Originally Posted by Lyman
If you cannot establish for yourself the intriguing similarities to EI-EAT, I won't bother to explain them to you, except to say that the schematic included does establish the location for you of the EEbay,
EI-EAT is Airbus 300. What makes you think elec bay locations are the same on 300 and 330? How do you imagine water leak would wreak havoc on electronics without DFDR recording anything, without crew noticing, or without a single ACARS maintenance message being generated?
Originally Posted by Lyman
PJ2, what was the result of BEA's exhaustive research in re: the EEBay?
It was in the aeroplane that was smashed against the ocean and spent two years on the ocean floor before being found. What do you think it could tell? For sure, traces of water ingression were plentiful but none could be proven to pre-date the impact.
Originally Posted by Lyman
Also, what of RIO or Anchorage, or Johannesburg, when a long haul jetliner experiences low temps far colder than Finland or Rio, or at time the ANTARCTIC?
Originally Posted by Lyman
In the time I worked as an investigator, I would from time to time get the idea that my report might be lacking, if not in data, in disclosure thereof, and also of methodology and group discussion in and within the team.
You just can't make this up. Alleged former investigator is unable to comprehend why water in toilets doesn't freeze while aeroplane is flying at -56°C OAT but it does when it's left undrained overnight at -10°C.
Lyman, you were posting completely unsupported claims. When pressed for reference, you provided irrelevant one and when warned it makes no sense, you became evasive and abusive. It looks to me you are more interested in eliciting certain reactions than having a sensible discussion.