Originally Posted by
CONF iture
It was the duty of the BEA, 20 years earlier, to detail such characteristic.
NTSB has done what BEA failed to do.
When the design prevents Sully to obtain a better touchdown, and Asseline, as wrong as he was in the first place, to avoid the trees, the design must be firstly detailed, and secondly can be questioned.
I agree that it would have been nice to have (earlier) a more thorough description of the system, for our armchair analysis.
But...
- Is it prooved that a higher AoA would have permitted to clear the trees? After reading the current thread, I'm under the impression it's not sure, far from it... Plus as awblain said:
Originally Posted by
awblain
If they didn't realize they needed more power, it's unlikely that they'd realize they needed to exchange speed for height either.
- With this in mind, why do you point a finger at the BEA? I'll quote its website:
The safety investigation, whose sole objective is to prevent future accidents and incidents, includes the gathering and analysis of information, the drawing of conclusions, including the determination of cause(s) and/or contributing factors and, when appropriate, the making of safety recommendations (European Regulation 996/2010 article 2 part 14).
In conclusion, I share your regret but do not feel entitled to accuse the BEA.