AF447
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
There is a separate thread about the trial. If that's what you want to discuss, go there. Otherwise I agree with those who say there is nothing this thread has added to the discussion of the accident itself. If you find that particular accident interesting, read the full official report, and the hundreds of pages and thousands of posts on the original thread(s).
Thread Starter
[QUOTE=grizzled;11415193]ALL of which was (very thoroughly) discussed and debated on the earlier threads. So please answer this one simple question: Have you read those threads?[/QUOTE
Yes, read them, and participated... I know most of this thread sounds trite, and repetitive. Very discouraging having to read and reread the knee jerk condemnation of the flight crew....again ...
But for the outright negligence and greed of Air France, it is likely in my opinion that this accident may not have happened....not to mention the lax training and material defects of the aircraft...
The popular opinion is an unjust one...not unexpected, since the "report" was the (sole) product of those arguably responsible for the accident... All the best regards to those here, all of you...Will
Yes, read them, and participated... I know most of this thread sounds trite, and repetitive. Very discouraging having to read and reread the knee jerk condemnation of the flight crew....again ...
But for the outright negligence and greed of Air France, it is likely in my opinion that this accident may not have happened....not to mention the lax training and material defects of the aircraft...
The popular opinion is an unjust one...not unexpected, since the "report" was the (sole) product of those arguably responsible for the accident... All the best regards to those here, all of you...Will
Last edited by Concours77; 5th Apr 2023 at 16:34.
Calls to close threads are like closing the mind.
Final reports can be used as definitive understanding, generally they are very good, but can be biased by a range of factors. Some reports find 'most likely' causes, others contributing factors, all with significant supposition about human behaviour; uncertainty.
We take from that what we wish to believe, we might learn, and with closure not open to further learning.
There are several issues relating to this accident which with debate could benefit safety. They are not definitive or proven; just some of the everyday uncertainties which everyone experiences.
There were 20 or so previous incidents which crews successfully managed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some crews reacted initially as AF 447, but subsequently change their course off action - why.
There are no simple answers, if any at all; just opportunity to think.
Bad apple theory, unproven and least helpful.
Situational factors more likely, levels of experience, but what experience, how gained.
Differences in training - some operators require Captains to fly the aircraft during emergencies; do relief pilots ever experience flight in abnormal conditions, degraded control systems.
Does recurrent training consider the 'do nothing' option of the drill required for the cruise situation.
Do regulators mandate more recurrent training for new threat situations, but what was the threat. 'The pilots' - using SOPs, or 'ice crystals' which should be avoided.
Safety-I vs Safety-II viewpoint, the human as a hazard, or the human a help to avoid a threat.
There is no need for the above to be proven; the safety value is in the thinking about them, which might be greater than in any final report.
Final reports can be used as definitive understanding, generally they are very good, but can be biased by a range of factors. Some reports find 'most likely' causes, others contributing factors, all with significant supposition about human behaviour; uncertainty.
We take from that what we wish to believe, we might learn, and with closure not open to further learning.
There are several issues relating to this accident which with debate could benefit safety. They are not definitive or proven; just some of the everyday uncertainties which everyone experiences.
There were 20 or so previous incidents which crews successfully managed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some crews reacted initially as AF 447, but subsequently change their course off action - why.
There are no simple answers, if any at all; just opportunity to think.
Bad apple theory, unproven and least helpful.
Situational factors more likely, levels of experience, but what experience, how gained.
Differences in training - some operators require Captains to fly the aircraft during emergencies; do relief pilots ever experience flight in abnormal conditions, degraded control systems.
Does recurrent training consider the 'do nothing' option of the drill required for the cruise situation.
Do regulators mandate more recurrent training for new threat situations, but what was the threat. 'The pilots' - using SOPs, or 'ice crystals' which should be avoided.
Safety-I vs Safety-II viewpoint, the human as a hazard, or the human a help to avoid a threat.
There is no need for the above to be proven; the safety value is in the thinking about them, which might be greater than in any final report.
Thread Starter
safetypee... Yes, precisely... My conclusion as to direct cause of this wreck I posted nine years ago...I'll post it again, as soon as I return from a flight into the California sunshine. AF447 F-GCZY 1. MECHANICAL 2. PILOT ERROR (actually two) both within ten seconds of each other, after which, no recovery was possible, given extenuating events...
From Concours77:
"My conclusion as to direct cause of this wreck I posted nine years ago...I'll post it again, as soon as I return from a flight into the California sunshine."
1) Please don't. This exactly what other readers are complaining about this thread. It is a rehash of earlier threads before the black boxes were recovered and the BEA report.
2) [Deleted]
3) Earlier you posted: "since the "report" was the (sole) product of those arguably responsible for the accident... ". So it is obvious where you are headed. But Air France and Airbus wrote the Crash Investigation Report ? Really?
This thread is an embarrassment.
IB
"My conclusion as to direct cause of this wreck I posted nine years ago...I'll post it again, as soon as I return from a flight into the California sunshine."
1) Please don't. This exactly what other readers are complaining about this thread. It is a rehash of earlier threads before the black boxes were recovered and the BEA report.
2) [Deleted]
3) Earlier you posted: "since the "report" was the (sole) product of those arguably responsible for the accident... ". So it is obvious where you are headed. But Air France and Airbus wrote the Crash Investigation Report ? Really?
This thread is an embarrassment.
IB
Last edited by Ivor_Bigunn; 10th Apr 2023 at 17:15. Reason: Original was Too Harsh !!
