Originally Posted by
Eyes only
The only A380 operator that flies into Hong Kong from the south is Qantas.
I've no idea of the relevance of this. Are you suggesting that because QF is the only operators of A380s from the south, and given there were no QF A380s in the vicinity, that a 744 couldn't have been affected by wake turbulence?
As at this stage we don't even know if wake was to blame but writing it off as a possibility due to the lack of QF A380s in the area at the time seems particularly daft unless you have an agenda to push.
But wait....
Originally Posted by
Eyes only
There is an appearance that Qantas has covered up the evidence here, the CVR and FDR should have been quarantined in the Hong Kong to the investigators, not waiting for it to be overwritten by flying it back to Australia.
Really? You know the specifics of what happened so well as to make such a determination? Multiple people across multiple departments have covered up evidence? Nice slandering of the crew, engineering in HKG (still HAECO?), QF safety personnel, etc.
Originally Posted by
Eyes only
Stall warning events are required reporting events in Hong Kong, just like in Australia. Qantas failed to follow its mandatory reporting requirements to the Hong Kong authorities.
You know this event wasn't reported? You base this assessment on what? Given the event appears on the ATSB website it appears it was reported IAW current procedures.