You must mean the Habschiem accident. This was the pilot doing something stupid and not understanding the systems. This get's raised in every A vs B discussion.
thats the one.
Dan I agree, obviously the pilot was doing something that was against airbus' logic since he ended up with such disastrous results.
But here is my question to the safety board of an airline company that's about to make a decision on A vs B - "Would you want to invest into an airliner that doesn't allow a pilot to fly away from the obstacles at low altitude by giving it TOGA and pulling the joystick aft?"
And even though its not an issue anymore, thats not the point - people who DIDN'T HAVE TO die, died!
if airbus would have thought long and hard about choosing their philosophy where pilot has to work with the computer, vs one where computer works with a pilot, no lives would be lost in that accident.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that this is not the only airbus accident where airbus' philosophy contributed or caused people injuries and deaths.
- new zealand 888t
- air intern 148
- air france 447
another opinion from an airbus captain on air france accident.
- A320 crash in Sochi
- TAM 3054
- QANTAS 71
qantas 71 and incidents similar to it (there were several) were the ONLY ones where AIRBUS couldn't do anything about shifting the blame on pilots, though i def. can't say they didn't try, and ITS PHILOSOPHY WAS OFFICIALLY FOUND TO BE AT FAULT.("design limitation in the flight control primary computer (FCPC) software" wikipedia)