I believe you may be referring to a Saudi Arabian Airlines L-1011 out of Riyadh circa 1980. I believe the re-enactment/movie was based on supposition though as the CVR was destroyed in the accident.
For those who want to see politics of an absolute monarchy intrude on air safety investigation, this is a good example. If I remember correctly the authors of the basic report were expelled from the kingdom, and a proper (ICAO) final report was never completed. The Saudi report was laughable.
I have seen one reconstruction that relied pretty faithfully on the above report, the psychology of what happened in the cockpit was very interesting, including the contribution of the dyslexic expat. flight engineer. The part played by the tower was critical in a serious situation being turned from a survivable into a fatal situation.
Never widely publicized, but a BOAC (BA) crew that witnessed the who thing, including the radio traffic, were also expelled from the kingdom, and could never again be rostered to anywhere in Saudi. What was happening in the 1011 cockpit relied on the testimony of the BOAC crew about the radio traffic.
Old Fella,
Where would you like me to start??
The CASA fiercely anti- the US approach to aviation regulation, the US approach has given us the world's best air safety outcome, versus the Australian approach of regulating most of GA to a standstill, with rather indifferent safety outcomes, the Australian GA accident record being something over double the US.
The Australian aviation community has, by and large, been passive to negative (the unions again) on the subject. Re. passive, despite all the whinging, why were there so few contributions to the recent ASRR (Forsyth) report. 10% of the alleged pilot community would have been around 3000 submissions, include the MRO community, should have been around 5000, what did we get, under 300!!
Perhaps the Australian approach to airspace management. When we wanted to emulate the very successful US implementation of ICAO airspace management SARPs, the opposition here was fierce, from ATC, CASA and one (largely) domestic pilot union.
Indeed, I was present at a meeting when the then Technical Director of said pilot union stated words to the effect; "I don't care how good the American system is, we are not going the have it here".
Interestingly, the pilot union whose members were familiar with the US system were happy with the intended reforms, it was those completely ignorant of the US system who defeated it.
Of course, the most important reform features were eventually defeated ( and not on safety grounds, for those of you who know of the infamous "bottom drawer letter"), and we have retreated to an inefficient and dysfunctional system, with every section of the industry paying the price, but disproportionately GA paying the price.
This is only going to get worse as the real cost of the unnecessary ADS-B mandate bites.
Outstandingly, we have a far higher rate of loss of separation incidents than the US (or Eurocontrol) systems, with a fraction of the traffic.
The latest change to CAR 166 is yet another example of ratbag change, with absolutely no regard to proper risk analysis, and again moving away from the proven system of the US, despite the previous system working safely for years.
The changes to the reform of Australia's certification standards in 1998 was fiercely fought, again, withing CASA airworthiness it was aid to me that we (CASA) will never accept US standards, and we don't care what Government policy might be.
We changed the certification standards, the CASA opposition had to lump it, but 15 years later, "they" are still trying to chip away.
I could go on, but you get the general drift.
The anti-septic attitude in the UK was even worse than here, and to a large degree (as in Australia) there is a very strong anti-US sentiment to this day, not limited to the aviation sector.
If you read D.P.Davies' "Handling the Big Jets" (more correctly Mishandling the Big Jets) the anti- US prejudice comes through loud and clear.
Tootle pip!!
Re. feathering propellers in the UK, read the wartime history of DeHavilland being forced by Lord Beaverbrook (a Canadian) to implement a license from Hamilton Standard. Even (early 1960s) when I was first flying in the UK, quite a number of UK designs had "two speed" props, not V-P, and the advantages of fully feathering V-P props was not universally accepted, hence the DC-4 at Speke.