Quote from RetiredF4 (my emphasis):
"Any pilot of my outfit was familiar with low flying down to 100 feet and up to 540 KIAS in Labrador, and we all agreed that flying an airliner at 100 feet or below over a small airfield at minimum speed was suicidal planing.
We discussed, why the crew even went considerably below that planned altitude and came up with the suggestion, that it might not have been the intention of the crew, but happened due to the perspective of the small little airfield.
Flying a visual approach to a small little runway / airfield like Habsheim when being used to bigger airfields and buildings like Basel just minutes before gives the visual illusion of being at a higher altitude above ground than actual."
Absolutely. And, on the approach, the distance-to-go would seem greater, once they had "gone visual". (They would initially have been using the FMS with a suitable waypoint constructed and inserted.)
You also make a very relevant point about the routing along the autoroute apparently being impracticable for the stated plan to fly along the paved Rwy 02. That would have involved an awkwardly-tight right turn.
Quote:
the crew... [...] didn't register the descent below 100 feet. Only altitude information comes from the Radar altimeter, Captain and FO did neither acknowledge nor react to those warnings.
...which would be very unusual for an A320 crew, even in those early days. The synthesised voice is clear and loud, calling 100, 50, and 30 ft (etc.). I notice that the BEA report recommended that the calls be included in the pilots' headphones, as well as the cockpit speakers. But I don't remember ever having a problem with our a/c at that time, and we always wore our earphones. Personally, in the L/H seat, I always wore my left earphone and boom mic, but usually kept the right earpiece just behind my right ear to allow conversation without necessarily using the intercom. (We did not get noise-reducing headphones until about a year later.)
HN39,
Bon courage...
