Mont St Odile crash latest news....

[TheSailor]

Hello,

Sorry...it's a free translation from the french newspaper "Le Monde"..
Original is http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3226,36-831887,0.html?xtor=RSS-3208

The correctional court of Colmar released, Tuesday November 7, the six prevented continued after the air crash landing of theSainte-Odile mount, which had made quatre-twenty-seven died in January 1992, while recognizing the whole civil liability for the Airbus companies and Air France. The president of the court Pierre Wagner estimated that prevented - five old frameworks of aeronautics and an air controller - "had not made a criminal offence", or of "characterized fault". It however raised that two among them, the air controller Eric Lammari and the architect of A320 Bernard Ziegler, had made negligences, and judged Airbus and Air France (in the capacity as successor of the Air company Inter)"entirely responsible for the damage undergone by the victims". Bernard Ziegler, in particular marked to have made a "negligence constitutive of a civil wrong" in the design of the ergonomics of the cockpit of A320, qualified this decision of "scandal". "One makes the surest plane of the world and one trails it in front of the courts! Ca predicts a beautiful future for aviation!", it declared at the exit of the audience. As for the air controller Eric Lammari, the court raised that it had made "errors of guidance" but estimated that it returned to an administrative court to determine if this civil servant of State had made a civil wrong. The final amount of the compensations was returned to a later audience fixed at June 5, 2007, but the court right now allocated 500 000 euros of lawyer expenses to the association of active the Echo victims and the naps several thousands with several tens of thousands of euros to certain families. "I RECONCILE MYSELF WITH THE JUSTICE OF MY COUNTRY" Those, although disappointed by the pronounced releases, expressed their satisfaction to see that justice "had just recognized the truth: it is not fate but the responsibilities "which are at the origin of the accident, declared the president of Echo, Alvaro Rendon. "For Echo, it is a great day. The 14 years of procedure are not lost. I reconcile myself with the justice of my country. They died for nothing ", it added. The court went in on this side requisitions made in June, at the end of one month and half of very technical and contradictory debates often. The parquet floor had required in June one year of prison with deferment against Bernard Ziegler, 73 years, former technical director of Airbus industry, Daniel Cauvin, 69 years, associated general ex-director of Air Inter, and Claude Frantzen, 69 years, former chief of the vehicle inspection of the general direction of the civil aviation (DGAC), and nine months with deferment against Eric Lammari, 50 years, air controller with the airport of Strasbourg-Entzheim at the time of the accident. The parquet floor on the other hand had recommended the release of Jacques Rantet, a former production director of Air Inter, and of Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, old general manager of the DGAC. To condemn prevented offences of homicides and wounds involuntary, the court should have made the demonstration of an unquestionable bond of causality between the reproached fault and the damage, and especially of a fault characterized for each one of prevented. The plane, an Airbus A320 d' Air Inter, had been crushed on January 20, 1992 on a snow-covered overturn of theSainte-Odile mount, whereas it prepared to land with the airport of Strasbourg-Entzheim.

Regards. http://photobucket.com/albums/v509/Bebermaur/th_bye.gif

[G-CPTN]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13550949,00.html
A French court is due to deliver its verdict on manslaughter charges over a 1992 plane crash that killed 87 people.
The Airbus A320, belonging to Air Inter, crashed on a Lyon-to-Strasbourg flight as it prepared to land.
The six defendants have been on trial since May and face up to two years in prison.
Prosecutors allege the plane, rather than pilot error, was to blame.
A crash inquiry suggested there may have been confusion over controls used to set the speed of descent and that the design of the cockpit may have been flawed.
The victims' families had sued the French government for £9.5m and accused it of dragging its feet over launching a prosecution, but a court threw out the case last month.
:: The defendants are Bernard Ziegler, technical director of Airbus at the time; Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, head of France's civil aviation agency DGAC at the time; Claude Frantzen, head of training at DGAC; two former Air Inter officials; and Eric Lammari, an air traffic controller.

[Rainboe]

Funny how the rest of the world managed to operate Airbuses, and other types, with their systems correctly used, yet suddenly there is this desperate attempt to prove people were negligent who showed no negligence! The drive to prove the deepest pockets negligent unfortunately pins an element of blame onto people who were not at all negligent. It comes from US lawyers obviously working on commission and is now spreading insidiously! I was appalled to see the US lawyer in a Silkair documentary. He was using all his strength to prove there was no suicide element, and i caught him saying 'why should the pilot commit suicide- all he needed to do was to dump the fuel!' (in a 737?). And the jury believed him!

[BOAC]

Funny how the rest of the world managed to operate Airbuses, and other types, with their systems correctly used - not in my recollection! There were a few 'pilot induced' errors in the early days. Habsheim and one in India for starters.

[autobrake3]

I guess the fact that Air Inter declined to have GPWS installed at the time had nothing to do with it then......

[captplaystation]

Guess the fact that the GPWS was US made had nothing to do with not installing it. Remember seeing that arrogant pr*ck Ziegler on TV in Blighty telling us viewers how "zee Airboos WEEL NOT ALLOW ZEE PILOT TO CRASH".That would be important to one who crashed his fast jet into a cablecar, predating the more recent American accident, and subsequently became almost unique among ex-mil pilots in France in having his application for a civvy licence declined and being forced to do most of the syllabus ( so former French colleagues lead me to believe).Any decent thinking person would have been haunted by his former comments, I believe his arrogance may have successfully queled that conscience , even when the (British) Airbus test pilot spun a A330 in over Blagnac due to an ALT ACQ misunderstanding after a long day in the (ground ) office.

[ironbutt57]

Good to see the "architect" of the 320 was absolved of blame, but better yet tht it was looked into in the first place....have to disagree with rainboe...in the states it would have all been laid at the feet of the crew....apparently this crash and others did result in some changes being made to the operation of the aircraft to Airbus' credit...wonder just how many ergonomic failures have resulted in accidents that were conveniently laid at the feet of the pilots...

[CONF iture]

Funny how the rest of the world managed to operate Airbuses, and other types, with their systems correctly used
The FBW Airbus from the early days is quite different from the one you may fly today.
For such an innovative technology, the A-320 certification was allowed only ... 1200 hours !?
18 years ago, one guy spoke out ... and for doing that, he lost everything.
... but he's still fighting : Norbert Jacquet (http://jacno.com/za-an-inmo.htm)

[NotPilotAtALL]

Hello,

Sorry for put above this old post ... but that's the latest news about this accident.....

The original press article (in french)

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2008/03/14/crash-du-mont-sainte-odile-la-cour-d-appel-confirme-la-relaxe-de-six-prevenus_1023172_3224.html

The Babelfish translation :

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Fsociete%2Farticle%2F2008%2 F03%2F14%2Fcrash-du-mont-sainte-odile-la-cour-d-appel-confirme-la-relaxe-de-six-prevenus_1023172_3224.html

Regards.

[Frangible]

Ziegler was cleared of manslaughter, but Airbus was civilly liable. Rainboe, this was a criminal prosecution by the State, not civil litigation, so pockets don't come into it.
GPWS was not then compulsory for domestic airlines, and Air Inter didn't install it for cost reasons, not because they believed Ziegler's claims.
My favourite quote of his on the A320: "My cleaning lady could fly it".

[captplaystation]

Any decent person would have been haunted by these remarks after the accidents in Habsheim, Bangalore and of course Strasbourg.
However, we are not dealing with someone decent, merely an arrogant failure working for a morally corrupt state owned company in a nationistically obsessed country.
The results of the 3 Airbus accident enquiries, along with the one of Concorde, could be reasonably accused of failure to emphasise the obvious causes, if they were commercialy inconvenient or embarrasing to the state, manufacturer, or operator concerned.

[Me Myself]

Good God, can hardly believe you actually live in France. What on earth do you do in a country you seem to despise so much ?

Mr Ziegler is a well known personality for someone my generation. He made a name for himself in the 60's for flying his military jet into the Chamonix valley ( where he wasn't allowed to fly ) which led him to severe the Aiguille du Midi cable car's cable which plunged to the ground killing all its occupants. A job truly well done.
Mr Ziegler being the son of a famous Air Force general close to another very famous french general, actually the General himself, got his name cleared in no time and resurfaced years later being the head of the A320 program.
He can rant all he likes, I'm sure his conscience tikles him at night from time to time. Funny no one ever mentioned that.

[the shrimp]

...
Mr Ziegler is a well known personality for someone my generation. He made a name for himself in the 60's for flying his military jet into the Chamonix valley
...
He can rant all he likes, I'm sure his conscience tikles him at night from time to time. Funny no one ever mentioned that.


One guy did it in France:

French: http://jacno.com/am4900.htm

English (Babelfish): http://fr.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjacno.com%2Fam4900.htm&lp=fr_en&btnTrUrl=Traduire

[Me Myself]

Thanks Shrimp.
Actually, the funny thing is that I remember hearing about it 5 or 6 years after it happened as I was too young in 1961, just proving that it remained well anchored in people's minds.
Looking at the paper clip I am amazed to think that this guy can have the blant arrogance to rant against the judicial system, the very same system that saves his a..e all those years ago.
I'm not holding my breath. I don't think he'll actually do time, that's what he deserves though.

[Frangible]

In the version I was told (by a French ex-military airline pilot) Ziegler's father was present for a ceremony in the valley at the time of the cable-severing, and that, in fact, was why sonny was there, showing off. The cable apparently passed between the wing and a drop tank. Daddy was head of Air France too, at one point. French aviation is very incestuous. One wonders what the little Zieglers are in charge of.

This, from Time in 1961:
"The small, shiny aluminum cable cars swayed in an endless, airy line high above the Alpine stillness of the Vallee Blanche. On either side the passengers could see the granite buttresses and whitened peaks of the Mt. Blanc massif. Far below gleamed broad glaciers and snowy crags.
Then out of the sky hurtled a French air force F-84F jet fighter. It sliced in two the cableway's traction line, losing a wing tank in the glancing blow, then soared out of the valley. The severed cable cracked like a whip. Three of the cars tumbled 500 ft. to earth, killing all six of their passengers. "They fell like ornaments from a Christmas tree," said one shaken observer. In the remaining cars, 81 other passengers dangled helpless in space. Mountain guides worked their way close enough to rope some of the passengers to safety. It took cableway technicians using hand cranks 20 hours to rescue the last car and its passengers.
As French police opened an official inquiry, Jet Pilot Captain Bernard Ziegler could only recall his plane striking "something." "Airplanes don't belong up there. Maybe people don't either," said one survivor, "but planes are as out of place as pagans in a cathedral."

[Lemurian]

Everything's fair for Airbus bashers, hey ?
Before we go any further, let's remind people on this thread that, like in quite a few other countries, the French judicial system has three stages : the *première instance* is the normal court, then we have the *cour d'appel*
(appellate court) and then the *tribunal de cassation*, which is the last resort.
At the end of the first instance, Airbus and Air France had been condemned as responsible, Airbus via the ergonomics aspect of this law suit.
Both the plaintiffs -families of the victims of the accident - and AF and AI decided to appeal.
Guess what ? The appellate court found the ergonomics article rather doubtful and decided on relaxing both Ziegler and AI. AF is left alone to pay for the damages and the plaintiffs have lost the reimbursement of their lawyers'fees.
Whether one likes Mr Bernard Ziegler or not is irrelevant here. The court has a verdict and whether the case will be pursued is still unclear. As far as I know, a court decision is to be respected, otherwise one should pack up and leave for other horizons where one doesn't feel like living in a banana republic.

Now for history ; apart from the usual gossip, Mr Henri Ziegler is as much a respectable man as there is. I could understand him being hated from across the Atlantic (after all he is one of the founders of Airbus Industry, along with Felix Kracht and Roger Béteille, and its first CEO ), but he also, among other achievements was the man who, between 1946 and 1954, put back Air France as one of the world players, started the first meaningful Euro-cooperation in aviation matters when he was at the head of Breguet Aviation...a respectable man in all aspects. His defence of Concorde was probably a mistake...

As for *incestuous*, one could have numerous examples of successful family traditions in the field of aviation...Dassault is one. And in this country, nothing prevents a son from following daddy's footsteps, provided he has the brains to do so. Funny how Henri and Bernard's footpaths coincide : Polytechnique (the greatest *school* in France), Ecole Nationale Supérieure de l'Aéronautique (any bigger ?), French Test Pilot School (EPNER)... Can one really blame him from some inflated ego, when he calls airline pilots as being like taxi drivers (he was wrong, I am a 'Bus driver ) ?

As for poor Norbert Jacquet some still quote, I, very sadly, think that all this money spent on letters to just about everybody but God and these lawsuits would be better used for some serious psychological treatment.
(I forgot...he lives in a banana republic where everybody is against him).

Of course, there is the reckless flying and he should have the memory of these lost lives for ever in his mind...That's not for me to judge, there is Someone up there whose job it is...
But we should hold, by the same standards, the one responsible for the Habsheim reckless project, not defend him at all costs.

[the shrimp]

As for poor Norbert Jacquet some still quote, I, very sadly, think that all this money spent on letters to just about everybody but God and these lawsuits would be better used for some serious psychological treatment.
Lemurian, living in Paris, wants to talk about Norbert Jacquet. OK. What does he think about this : http://jacno.com/za-an-an13.htm ?

"Poor Norbert Jacquet" as he said, or... poor Lemurian?!

[Me Myself]

Lemurian

Are you the ghost from Xmas past ???
You are truly muddling the waters here.
Henri Ziegler may have been a great resistant and allow me to ask: Who cares ??????????? totally irrelevant in this post and I'm not reaching for my hankie.
That he rebuilt AF ?? Great, that's just where I happen to work. So thanks.
Airbus basher ??? Flew the damn thing, loved every minute of it. Great aircraft .

Bernard Ziegler however is another matter. The prosecutor is after his toushy like the victim's families and allow me to say rightly so cuz, like it or not he was the head of the program. Who else is to be held accountable ?? The tooth fairy ?? The aircraft that crashed then was nothing like the one we fly today and it is exactly because of elite school arrogance that it happened. How many compagnies have these people run " kaputt " in France ?? Remember Crédit Lyonnais ???. Ouch !!
The fact that he got off the hook, thanks to Daddy , after having KILLLED 6 people is also undisputable and allow to say quite sickening. Had he been John Dough's son he would have been left to rot. So do not tell me about banana republic when it is exactly where we live.
As to those directly responsible for the Habsheim crash, they did pay the price and a heavy one at that. Losing job, reputation and terminal illness for one of them. No sweet thing such as Airbus where daddy gets you a job.
How convenient to leave it all to the Great Maker of All Things somewhere in the sky. Actually, it's kinda sweet.

[Lemurian]

Quote : "Lemurian, living in Paris, wants to talk about Norbert Jacquet"
1/- Is living in Paris a crime ?
2/-I don't want to talk about N.J., I just commented on the fact that some of you quoted him .
Now, and it's the last time I will comment on this subject, no one has ever uttered any doubt on his analytical brilliance (that was in 1989 ).The paper you cite dates in 2000, and already one could read :
..."there exist some paranoid traits characterised by a self over-estimation, a tendency for a certain psychic rigidity, a revendication and a tenacious and combative sense of his own rights and the designation of his persecutors...these traits are due more to a context than a pathology..."
I say again, that was written eight years ago, before his situation really got worse.

I just think sad the fact that one person could antagonise at the same time
-his union, the SNPL
-his airline
-several ministers and with them the whole French administration
-the judicial institution
-the Lawyers guild
-the European court of Justice of Human Rights.
-Eurocockpit (french equivalent of Prune one cannot in any way accuse of collusion with either AF or AI, aka *Radio coco*}.
-the Media as a whole...
I probably forgot a few.

[Me Myself]

Is this Bernard Ziegler or Norbert's Jaquet' s profile because as sure as egg I can't pick up the difference.

[Lemurian]

Quote : "Are you the ghost from Xmas past ???
You are truly muddling the waters here."

Have I ever cited Henri Ziegler's history during the war ?

As far as the prosecutor and the families are concerned, tough, there is a judgement in appeal and as far as I know, nobody has appealed to the cour de cassation.
That the appellate court has found that B.Z -and therefore AI- were not to blame, your whole paragraph is moot. There is one reponsible, though : Air Inter and Air France.

Quote : "Great aircraft NOW, not then."

Pray tell me what has changed to make it so ?

[the shrimp]

I just think sad the fact that one person could antagonise at the same time
-his union, the SNPL
-his airline
-several ministers and with them the whole French administration
-the judicial institution
-the Lawyers guild
-the European court of Justice of Human Rights.
-Eurocockpit (french equivalent of Prune one cannot in any way accuse of collusion with either AF or AI, aka *Radio coco*
-the Media as a whole...
I probably forgot a few.
Yes. You forgot... Lemurian himself, a brave anonymous who seems to have an obsession: Norbert Jacquet.

Lemurian, you are talking nonsense about Norbert. Stop it please. I repeat: Stop it please, Norbert Jacquet is not an atomic bomb in the canisse :)

Thanks Lemurian.

[windytoo]

Let him eat cake.

[Lemurian]

Quote :"
Lemurian, you are talking nonsense about Norbert. Stop it please. I repeat: Stop it please,"
I'll come back every time you quote him as THE main source of your anti AF and anti AI rantings.

[Me Myself]

Lemurian

I am going to start thinking this is your psych profile and no NJ's that's been posted here. Did it quote rigidity and paranoïa ?
Where on earth do you see anti an AF and anti Airbus plot on this thread ??
We're merely talking about the trial and Bernard Ziegler's glorious past in our no less glorious armed forces.
The fact that you'd better be a general's son in this country if you don't want to be gutted like a fish once you've stuffed up is undisputable and doesn't change the fact that little bus is a great aircraft to fly; in my view much better than the 737. But I won't hold it against you if you don't agree.
Do I need to remind you that the aircraft's ergonomy was just a tad changed after the crash as a few other things after Lufthansa also crashed in Warsaw which, indeed, made a much better and safer aircraft to fly.
I don't know how old you are but you sure sound like my mother and her resistance friends ranting about the enemy from within.........in 2008.

[sekant]

Myself, I take it that Lemurian refers to, or was riled by:'However, we are not dealing with someone decent, merely an arrogant failure working for a morally corrupt state owned company in a nationistically obsessed country.'Airbus has obviously its weaknesses and its shortcomings, but does it warrant that type of attack?????

[DozyWannabe]

I dunno. Call me kooky, call me wacky, but I can't shake the suspicion that a lot of the anti-AI/AF/Ziegler posts on this thread are from various pseudonyms of M. Jacquet himself.

I remember reading many moons ago that the GPWS was not mandated on Air Inter's A320s because at the time GPWS was still having the bugs worked out - giving many false positives, and Air Inter had been in direct competition with the TGV high-speed rail network since 1981 and couldn't afford to have any delays.

I'm not denying the behaviour of the state-owned Air Inter was more than a little ill-advised, but you can't blame the aircraft for that.

[Lemurian]

Quote :"
I am going to start thinking this is your psych profile and no NJ's that's been posted here. Did it quote rigidity and paranoïa ?"

Yes it did. Very easy to find it as it is one of the paragraphs that haven't been highlighted.I am surprised that you don't seem to read the documents that have been cited,especially the link that the shrimp has posted earlier.
The translation I provided is about as litteral as I could make it in order to be understandable in English. The fact that it is written in some very careful wording from the psychoanalysts who examined Mr Jacquet makes every word more important than usual.
I would like to remind you that in no occasion I have put mr Jacquet's intelligence in doubt. I think that any one in the same circumstances could reveal some tension -of any sort- and mental rigidity is something that can be cured.
On the other hand, all these conspiration theories putting all our national institutions into the worst light are beginning to be tiring. Although Mr Jacquet's persistence could be admirable, I am of the opinion that it could have been better *chanelled*.

Another aspect of this discussion is quite interesting : you have said that the airplane - the 320 - is no longer what it was twenty years ago : If that is true, and I am still waiting for the proof, why do you keep on beating a dead horse ?

May I remind you that the subject of this thread was about the appellate court decision on the Mt Ste Odile CFIT ?
The difference in findings with the previous court is that the *ergonomics* aspect of the airplane is not in cause > As you've flown the 320, do you really believe that in normal circumstances one could mistake the HDG/VS presentation with the TRK/FPA symbology on the PFD ? Do you really think that adding two extra digits in the window made the airplane safer ?
That most of the responsibility - as people, including yourself clamour for culprits and scapegoats - falls on Air Inter is wise... and one can cite training, rostering, SOPs...etc... in this regard. But I ask the question ? Did these lawsuits help in promoting better air safety ?
The question is posed , and if I had something against the French system, the *lawsuitisation* of air accidents investigation is something that needs - badly - to be changed. Our safety depends on it.
One can also remember that the main change to the 320 family software came very quickly and without any court intervention from the Bilbao incident...But to say that the aircraft has completely changed is a bit far-fetched.

As a final point, your argumentation, based on personal attacks is probably the demonstration that some remnants of stalinism still exist.
And you should be more respectful of your grandmother.

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Me Myself:
Lemurian... Where on earth do you see anti an AF and anti Airbus plot on this thread ??
[Unquote]

As a non-French retired A320 driver, who flew the aeroplane by choice for 14 years - from its introduction into service (Spring 1988) - I have to say that the above tirade against the Zieglers sounds very much like an attempt to discredit French aviation in general, and the Franco-German Airbus design ethos in particular.

And it appears that sekant is of a similar opinion.

As for the merits (or otherwise) of these attacks, I think we should remind ourselves that, in every field of human endeavour, human frailty eventually leads to tragedy of one kind or another. The problem with calling us humans to account for genuine mistakes in a court of law is that the whole truth is unlikely to emerge, and the slightest hint of contrition becomes a stick for ambitious lawyers to beat us with. That feature of the human condition applies to all parties concerned in the endeavour; not just the chief designer.

Thus, if Monsieur Ziegler has indeed been guilty of arrogance in the past, we should not hold our breath while waiting for him to recant.

[Me Myself]

"" difference in findings with the previous court is that the *ergonomics* aspect of the airplane is not in cause > As you've flown the 320, do you really believe that in normal circumstances one could mistake the HDG/VS presentation with the TRK/FPA symbology on the PFD ? Do you really think that adding two extra digits in the window made the airplane safer ? ""

Yes, it most certainly did ! what are normal circumstances in this buisiness anyway ? They were trying to be on time, coming in like the devil, hardly comunicating, very litlle experience on type and yes, the absence of double didgit was extremely misleading. That mistake had been reported a lot of times before and even after the aircraft was modified, pilots still make mistakes specially in V/S mode for a reason I cannot explain, they sometimes put the aircraft in a climb instead of descent.
Mind you, this also happens on the 777. Modern aircrafts, Boeing or Airbus, allow these kind of mistakes by their very design. it's the way it is and that's why you really have to pay attention to what you're doing.

I say again, the aircraft is much better today because of these modifications and since you don't seem to listen here it is again " I LOVED EVERY MINUTE I SPENT FLYING IT " Capicce ?
I think the joy stick is just brillant and the best way to fly an aircraft. I never had any problem with not knowing what the F/O was up to. In 4 years I only took the controls once with the priority button. Same thing with the throttle, don't give a hoot if doesn't move.
If I had an opportunity to fly the 380 I'd go right now, in fact I'd give my left nut to fly it, that's how much I hate Airbus.

Do not ask me to be in awe with our institutions however. People like you scare the living witt out of me by talking about plots every time they hear something against La Grandeur de la........... In some other country they call that " freedom of speach ". I know, it sounds horrendous.

Of course no one is expecting Mr Ziegler's apology for what happened in Chamonix, although, try asking the families. One is however allowed to remind the forgetfull public of what he got away with and why and how. Only fair.


By the way, I'm not Norbert Jacquet..............are you ??
You mean the entire thread is maybe Norbert Jacquet talking to Norbert ?? Brrrrrrrrr ! Chilling. I'm outa here.

[Lemurian]

After a post like that, I can only rest my case.
Fascinating !

[captplaystation]

Mon Dieu, what a can of "verre de terre" I opened up here.
Just to reassure you Me Myself, I am no longer in France. The aspects I hate unfortunately are increasing inversely proportionally to the aspects I love. That seems to apply to most countries however, so I guess I am just becoming a sad old fart.
The lack of transparency, in all the investigations I refer to, I could not condone in an African state , never mind La France, and the great Monsieur Ziegler ? Well his utterances ref bus/ taxi drivers so many years ago when the A320 was being introduced alienated me to his (sorry for this) rather typical French (of a certain standing) arrogance / self confidence , even at that time. In years to come , when I learned a little more of the history of this individual , you imagine my appreciation of him did not increase.

[sekant]

Cat,

You seem to have a beef with the French, fine, but frankly, your clichés are quite stale. The French are full of themselves?? Sure, and so are the Yanks, the Brits, or the Italians. They are proud of their country, and rightly so.

Airbus is corrupt?? Possibly, but no more than Boeing (see initial Air Tanker deal) or BAe (see Saudi deal). The French State is corrupt?? Definetely, as are the British and US State apparatus (see all the lies peddled to get into Irak).

So come down back on planet earth and get some perspective: not every single Frenchman has 6 lives to account for (and if you want examples of well-off families being able to escape from legal liabilities in the UK and the US, I'll be also willing to provide examples, including the name of US senator).

[CONF iture]

"Monsieur Ziegler ... arrogance / self confidence" ???

Nooooo ... but only pure Humility
... Let you just convinced he was talking of himself and his F84 ...

http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/Films%20video/bd-temoignages.wmv (http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/Films%20video/bd-temoignages.wmv)

[captplaystation]

CONF iture,
Very succint, of course it was the pilot's fault.
sekant, come down off your francophone cloud and read what I wrote, and for good measure read the accident reports I refer to and note what is missing / concealed.
Just because the Yanks / Boeing are no better , it doesn't mean I have to condone the dishonesty of Airbus / DGAC /Air France or Mr Ziegler does it, or is that what is meant by "the French exception".
A bit like the "Rainbow Warrior" no doubt. . . . sorry couldn't resist that one.

[sekant]

Cat,

I suggest you do not assume what my cultural background is, or have we already met.

I know the cases you refer to. I have long been convinced there was something fishy behind the Mt St-Odile crash and the way the enquiry was handled (this does not seem to be the case in the Indian airlines case, where the responsibility of pilots is far clearer, with to my mind also applies to Habsheim).

Thing is, I would not be surprised that to protect a key industry and emerging technology, some liberty has been taken with the law. But as stressed, France is one of several countries that would be willing to take some shortcuts to ensure that the future of those key industries is not endangered. That concerns both super and middle-powers, for strategic reasons.

So, yes, to use those events to rant about the nationalistic and arrogant French is stale. A French saying the same thing about an English person would be equally stale.

[captplaystation]

Don't believe I know you, but yes , racial stereotyping is a bit too easy ( so I am a mean miserable Scotsman. . . actually you know it is not so far wrong )
As regards the Habsheim accident, I remember watching a TV documentary where the Capt said the engines didn't respond normally, Airbus responded that they had , and it seemed that a 5 second segment had been "lost" on the FDR trace which corresponded to the time interval when the engines should have responded , and when they actually did. So, the odour of poisson was there too. Seem to remember in Mt St Odile that the FDR proudly displayed on TV "prior to analysis" was a different colour to the one seen being helicoptered from the scene, suppose they could have just removed the outer casing. . . . . maybe.
As I am just starting my Day's Off I shall try and be charitable and stop slagging off the country I lived in for quite some time, but let's agree, sometimes things are less than blanc ? I don't claim at any stage, you will agree, that things are any better in the land of Mr Bush, I think you can allow also that perhaps we may be a little more clear in Rosbif -land, No ?

[Lemurian]

Gossip and hearsay backed by francophobia.
What a mix !
Quote : "for good measure read the accident reports I refer to and note what is missing / concealed."

Please give the links. I am curious.

Quote : "sekant, come down off your francophone cloud"

As I've never heard a French or English (for that matter) -speaking cloud, I presume you refer to *francophilia*, a great crime in some parts of the world, I know.

Why don't you accept a technical discussion on the subject at hand (i.e the 320 perceived failings ) instead of some TV program or some write-up in some rag?
May be you'll discover - just for instance - that a big-fanned engine takes up to EIGHT seconds to spool up to GA thrust, from idle and that -fact !- both the recorders and the spectrum analysis of the soundtrack of these videos concur toward a normal engine acceleration.
In airman's terms, the pilot of the Habsheim accident got everything wrong : low on energy, low on altitude, low on thrust...the surviving occupants were lucky it was a 320 and not another airplane. There would have surely been a far greater toll in Habsheim.
But if you only fly playstation, I guess you're not really interested. Easier to bash the frogs, especially when you're closer to them, living as you are in their land.
Merci

[CONF iture]

Nationality has just nothing to do in these issues.
Only matters power/money

Lemurian, before forwarding the official propaganda, think by yourself !





And next time you go from flight idle to TOGA tell me if you really have to wait 8 seconds before feeling a kick in your ***

[Chris Scott]

Quote from CONF iture:
And next time you go from flight idle to TOGA tell me if you really have to wait 8 seconds before feeling a kick in your ***


These insinuations are becoming more and more cryptic; less and less transparent to the normal reader. Can we open up this discussion for normal mortals? In the interests of clarity, and particularly for the benefit of those forumites - unlike ourselves - for whom the events of 1988-90 had little significance, could you please explain precisely your conspiracy theory?

I have no doubt that even half the certificated 8 seconds would have seemed a near-eternity in the situation that M. Asseline and his unfortunate copilot found themselves at Habsheim; one entirely of their own design (not M. Ziegler's). Speaking personally, the video itself told the tale long before the flawed investigation. The fact that the report confirmed what we had already tentatively concluded meant it was of limited interest.

As for the topic this thread is supposed to be addressing − the entirely unrelated accident at Mont St Odile (on a VOR/DME approach to Strasbourg) − the best theory exonerated neither Airbus nor the crew; useful changes were made to the FCU, and significant changes were made to the FPV (flight-path vector) FD presentation and, on the PFD (ADI), the selected values of VS or FPA were added.

The fact is, though, that had the crew been using the FCU-FD interface correctly − that is, by observing the effects of their FCU selections step by step on the PFD, instead of the FCU alone − they could not possibly have failed to notice that they were in VS, not FPA (flight-path angle), mode. [For the uninitiated, they seem to have selected a VS of -3000ft/min (unhelpfully represented on the FCU selection window as –30), in the belief they were selecting a flight-path angle of -3·0°.] Even putting that to one side, the FPA Flight Director command bars on the PFD were and are unmistakeably different from the conventional command bars that would have been presented. Assuming they had rushed the FCU selections in high workload, their apparent failure to notice they had ended up in the wrong flight-director mode cannot simply be attributed to A320 cockpit ergonomics.

Hence, my second question to Monsieur CONF iture: do you have a conspiracy theory on this accident too?

It seems likely that the simple technique I describe was not fully emphasised in their training. We pilots are creatures of habit, and the A320 was the first type to incorporate so much FD information on the PFD. It was only the second civil type to offer the flight-path vector; the first being the A310 of 1983. Other types, including all Boeings and McDonnell Douglases, not to mention BAC 1-11s and Mercures, forced the pilot handling the FCU (whether the PF, or the PNF by command of the PF) to focus attention on the FCU alone while selections were being made.

We all looked at our own habits after Strasbourg; well − the thoughtful among us, anyway. As a specialist line-checker on the A320 for 12 years, the most consistent mishandling I was able to observe (from the relaxed perspective of the jump seat) was the tendency of nearly all ex-B757 and ex-B737 pilots to turn the various FCU knobs and, meanwhile, monitor the changing parameter on the FCU − instead of the PFD. If you think I am exaggerating, let me assure you that it is possible to watch people’s eyeball movements to the point of obsession, but only if you are not personally responsible for the conduct of the flight…

Trust my successors are still taking this matter seriously. It is a practice that [U]MUST be hammered home until it becomes second nature to all pilots of aircraft with sophisticated auto-flight systems and proper PFD displays. Otherwise, Strasbourg may go sadly on to my list of “lessons (not always) handed down”.

[captplaystation]

Lemurian. . . what variety? an aye-aye perchance ( that would be good, head in the dark seldom viewed Hmmn ), it is strange that in 12,000hrs of flying Monsieur CFM's products, albeit attached to an American wing, I cannot ever recall taking anything approaching 8 seconds to go from demand to thrust.
Maybe I am just a smart guy who is always ahead of the game, maybe it is because even in Flight- Idle there is still a significant amount of thrust being produced, and therefore very little lag between demand and response, certainly not 8 seconds.
Another possibility, is that your Froggy wonder plane ( if I am not mistaken) goes to a very low ground idle, after a time interval subsequent to passing 50 ? ft, whereas my slightly less sophisticated Yank Tank has the common sense to wait till you are on the ground with a decent time interval to select reverse ( therby ensuring a rapid spool-up) before coming back to such a low speed that it takes 8 seconds.Wonder if Norbert knew that before Habsheim, maybe Mr Ziegler didn't think Bus Drivers needed to be bothered with such things.
The rags/ sensationalist TV that made the allegation all those years ago was a fairly well respected investigative programme, not a state-owned / state-gagged institution like TF1.
Maybe for this reason, and various other ground-air switch mishaps/ control logic crap, there seems to be more A320 / 340 SERIES runway excursions than for Boeing equivalent.
Sometimes, particularly for a plane or a small Malagash animal, it is not clever to be too clever.
So, as CONFiture says, stop spouting the official version of events, and do some background reading. Do you seriously think your Govt ( and no I do not claim the Yanks wouldn't have done the same please note ) would have let one mans career or reputation( in Habsheim, )stand in the way of the commercial sucess of the "wonder-plane". To condone or be an apologist for a corrupt system is a sad stance for someone who claims to be an aviation professional.
And please don't get me started on the Concorde saga, of course dragging the gear sideways along the runway is just fine, until it trips up over a bit of Yank debris, I forgot, it is all their fault.
P.S. you will see from my updated profile that I am now in a more suitable location, close to, but not actually in " le merde".

[Lemurian]

Quote :..."I am just a smart guy who is always ahead of the game, maybe it is because even in Flight- Idle there is still a significant amount of thrust being produced, and therefore very little lag between demand and response, certainly not 8 seconds."...
The Malagasy aye-aye at least is clever enough 1/- to read what other have posted, and 2/ seem to know more about aviation than a self-acknowledged egocentrist ! And remember, the description of the aye-aye : seldom seen, heard for many miles.
This is what I wrote and I dare you to prove me wrong :..."a big-fanned engine takes up to EIGHT seconds to spool up to GA thrust, from idle "...

Quote :..."Another possibility, is that your Froggy wonder plane ( if I am not mistaken) goes to a very low ground idle, after a time interval subsequent to passing 50 ? ft, whereas my slightly less sophisticated Yank Tank has the common sense to wait till you are on the ground with a decent time interval to select reverse ( therby ensuring a rapid spool-up) before coming back to such a low speed that it takes 8 seconds."...

Yes, you are -again - mistaken.
Secondly, as your yankee tank uses the same froggie-yankee engine as my froggie (Germans and Brits might might object to that idea of yours) wonder plane, they accelerate at the same rate.

Quote :..."a state-owned / state-gagged institution like TF1.
"...
And of course, Mr Murdoch's media are a freer, fairer kind of journalism, aren't they ?

Quote : ..."Maybe for this reason, and various other ground-air switch mishaps/ control logic crap, there seems to be more A320 / 340 SERIES runway excursions than for Boeing equivalent."...

Are you really sure ?

Quote :..."To condone or be an apologist for a corrupt system is a sad stance for someone who claims to be an aviation professional.
...
Me ? I deal with facts, only proven facts.Technical facts and not elucubrations from a random choice of conspiracy-mongers.
With all your ranting you haven't come up with anything more than hatred utterances. Yeah, what is new ? Let's have a discussion based on technology and piloting and software programming. I am ready.
And as far as Habsheim is concerned, I have read on this subject in all probability a lot more than you, and I have had more than quite a few arguments with people in the field of flying / engineering than you'll ever dream of.

Your last sentence is quite enlightening : To make a mistake on a gender of a very common word -"LA merde"- shows how many French you came in contact with and your open-ness. Apparently the *Sh@t* you are talking about hasn't been completely lost when it hit the fan.

Kind regards.

[CONF iture]

CRYPTIC ?
Unfortunately I just don’t have that natural aptitude for writing. As I said earlier, your postings are always very clear and a real pleasure to read.
On my side I do try my best … but my best is probably not always enough, I agree.

CONSPIRACY ?
Appropriate term would be more like FACT MANIPULATION or even COVER UP
But CONSPIRACY against Norbert Jacquet (http://jacno.com/za-an-moye.htm) (not to be confused with Michel Asseline) … without the shade of a doubt !

THAT is the real shame regarding that period and up to now.
Norbert has been destroyed for publicly doubting the official story, nothing more nothing less.
What have we done with the right of free expression ?
Worst: As a pilot community, why didn’t we protect one of us ?
And to make things very clear this time: Norbert was NOT in that Habsheim airplane.

Now, think about that:
Why crushing someone who speak up if his argumentation is worthless ?

[Lemurian]

CONF iture,
This thread is going everywheree and nowhere.
So, let's do something more useful than inuendos and links to files that ,due to their length and complexity, very few will bother to read.
Let's start with NJ's technical arguments and his *doubts* over the *official story* and let's discuss them, one by one.
There are a few people who would be interested in participating.

Then, let's talk about both accidents - Habsheim and Mt Ste Odile -with a view on technical and human factors incidences.

And let's leave lawsuits and character assassination aside, for once. Let's also leave aside the childish "Not Boeing, not going"- type of argumentation.

Deal ?

[DozyWannabe]

CONF iture:
As a pilot community, why didn’t we protect one of us ?
The pilot community did as best they could, as I understand it. But the fact remains that regardless of when M. Asseline demanded thrust, the aircraft was out of its protection regime - too low and too slow - even on approach. He made a mistake and it turned out to be fatal. When that happens to a pilot, all the pilot community can do is help him ameliorate the consequences.

M. Jacquet was not in the aircraft but he was one of those who sought to absolve M. Asseline by any means necessary, including damaging his own health.

Where the French government could be considered negligent in the case of the Mont St. Odile accident was over how they would introduce a method of inter-city transport (TGV) that would in many cases supercede the existing method (Air Inter), without providing a plan to scale down or restructure Air Inter without major job losses.

[Me Myself]

JOB LOSSES ??? With Air Inter. wannaby, you must be very dozey.
No jobs were lost and from a pilot point of view, this merger was nothing but headache. Nothing but a large bunch of wingers who were pissed as hell because they didn't get access to long haul right away.
The dust has settled now, thank God but it never was a merger anglo-saxon style.
Some chose to leave, on medical grounds !!! cuz those sensitive souls felt depressed. This brought us a rise on our loss of licence insurance premium, thank you very much and a loss of coverage for everything having to do with mental health, depression and backache being the main reason they used to get a fat check.
No one at the bottom of the seniority list either. So for an airline that was bound to bite the dust because of the TGV, these guys did terribly well and that goes for cabin crew.

Now, regarding this airbus thing, some viewers seem to forget that a hoodle of countries are involved in the project and that includes the UK.
So, if there was a covered cock up on Airbus side it also was a British one, among other countries. Name me one country that didn't benefit from the success of the 320 ??? Norbert, bless him cuz I sure wouldn't like to be him today, took the risk to open his mouth not realizing what he was coming against, only a proof that it pays to know your classics " Don Quichotte " Cervantès would have been a good start.

By the way, I love spending time in the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District, so spare me with the anti " Rosbif " rant.

[captplaystation]

So Lemurian, as I don't have acess to an A320 manual, tell me ,when does the A320 go to low flight idle/ground idle. . or whatever Airbus call it ? I was always led to believe that at the time of Habsheim it happened after a pre-determined amount of time subsequent to passing a pre-determined height, which, if that were the case would have left the engine in a regime (impossible in the 737 installation ) whereby it "could" have taken up to 8secs to go to G/A thrust I suppose, I have no way to ascertain the time required from Boeing material, as the low idle problem doesn't exist whilst airborne, it is merely a problem if you are too slow to select reverse thrust.
Was that/ is that the case, or is that another fantasy that I have read.
If it were the case, was it in the manuals at the time ( not now but then) and widely known or easily found in a pilot's (not engineers) manual.
Why would a reputable TV programme make a claim, that would leave them open to a defamation claim, that 5 seconds had "dissapeared" from the FDR trace, this five seconds corresponding to a portion of the time between the demand for thrust and it arriving.
In case you think I only have conspiracy theories against the French, I can assure you that I believe very little of what comes from the other side of the pond, if we consider TWA, 9/11 and various other aviation related "events", where money or power is concerned the truth is a very flexible commodity.
Are you open to see a version of events that contradicts the official version if it is in your own back yard? That, is a question between you and your personal ethics, not really for me to ponder.

Edited to say, I realise that a Frenchman saying " maybe I am just a smart guy ", could be referring to himself ,however, where I come from we call it " tongue in cheek". . . not to be confused with "tongue up @rse"

[CONF iture]

Lemurian,
I take it as a fair deal and would be ready to participate in any of your initiatives.

But first, let me quickly expose my viewpoint on all this:

Norbert Jacquet, Airbus, Habsheim, Strasbourg, BEA, mass media, etc … (the list could even be surprisingly larger … !?) are all very interlinked. Whichever topic we will discuss in that list, we can find a direct link with any of these other topics or even we might need to link with one or the other topics.
Pprune is already very rich in contributions of all sorts regarding these subjects.
In the same time, I really don’t mind keeping that in a more “intimate” participation where everybody takes time to read each other before posting. BA038 topics were just too big to be informative, at least in the early days even weeks.

M. Jacquet was not in the aircraft but he was one of those who sought to absolve M. Asseline by any means necessary, including damaging his own health

Not at all, especially considering the presence of passengers and flight attendants on board, Norbert was the first to denounce the stupidity of that piece of “flying”.

His point was very different:

Norbert RIGHTFULLY did not accept
that highest level statement from Louis Mermaz the very SAME evening … even though both black boxes were still in Alsace … (http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/Films%20video/bd-Mermaz_Wolff.wmv)
"The first elements of the inquiry tell us that the technology and functioning of the aircraft are not at stake. This is not a dysfunction of the Airbus 320 that is at the origin of this dreadful event, these are the conclusions of the early investigation"

To resume:
The airplane is not at fault.
The airplane won’t be at fault.

Many posted links are coming from http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/ (http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/)
Jean-Claude Boetsch is now a retired journalist, and was one of the passengers in Habsheim.

[Lemurian]

CONF iture,
Quote :..."Whichever topic we will discuss in that list, we can find a direct link with any of these other topics or even we might need to link with one or the other topics"...
Although I heartily agree with you there, we can't go anywhere with that sort of vision, the discussion will go again nowhere.

What I have in mind is, point by point, something like : "this is what the investigation has determined...", to which one could oppose : "...but this is my / his theory...... and go on from that point.

No ghost tapes - although that could come out as another subject as to the likelyhood of recorder-switching with all the parameters doctored in one week-end (you see I could be quite candid ). I will even go further in acknowledging the recorder case switch -but for very easily explainable / understandable reasons which had to do with the scare the accident provoked in AI / official circles. We could elaborate and discuss that too.

No citing of any official outside the investigation to muddle-up our purpose.
And we leave aside the Jacquet's actual situation.
We could make history on Prune.

Now the question is : Shall we start another thread or shall we keep on this one (the title is now totally wrong) ?

Your turn,
And I'll appreciate as many contributors as possible on this. Some on this site have more than the caliber required. They're just tired of beating long-dead horses, but this new agreement could bring them back.

As a matter of course, AI-BCA war mongers are not welcome.

cps,
As I don't know you, and I haven't stolen your car - or your wife, I really do not understand your insults. I haven't even referred to the possibility that you are living outside the UK in order to evade British taxes on your salary (the 6 months residency loophole that so many of your colleagues are playing with).
Your knowledge of the subject is - in your own terms - based on theories that are at least suspect and your anti-320 bias is baseless.
Wherever you put your tongue is your business, although I've found some sexual habits quite curious.
From this moment on, your posts will be invisible to me.
Adieu.

[captplaystation]

Well, that was a simple answer to a relatively simple question ( at least for anyone with an understanding of what they fly) NOT. . . .
A big thank-you for dispelling any misconceptions I had about your attitude ( "I will ignore you" PHEW I will lose a lot of sleep over that. . . tongue goes back in cheek ) or indeed your wonderful Mercure MK 2.
Oh, by the way, I am happily paying my taxes in another European country ,thanks for asking.

[the shrimp]

And we leave aside the Jacquet's actual situation.

Why? Is Norbert Jacquet plague-stricken?

[DozyWannabe]

If, by 'plague-stricken', you mean 'madder than a sack of badgers and more paranoid than Stalin on a cocaine binge', then yes.

[the shrimp]

In the upper left corner of this page : PPRuNe = Professional Pilots Rumour Network

If, by 'plague-stricken', you mean 'madder than a sack of badgers and more paranoid than Stalin on a cocaine binge', then yes.

Huh...

DozyWannabe, what you said is not serious. And it's even public defamation. Actually Norbert Jacquet is not a pseudo, but a real person. So, please...

[the shrimp]

British Television (Channel 4) about Norbert Jacquet : http://jacno.com/vdo/equinox-90-extraits.wmv (http://jacno.com/vdo/equinox-90-extraits.wmv)

[captplaystation]

Could well be "mad" , as in angry, but didn't strike me as " mad" as in loopy.
Poor guy, thought politicians would put what was correct ahead of what was commercialy expedient.
His only crime was to perhaps be a bit nieve when judging the low-life that pass for leaders of supposedly civilised countries (not just referring to La France here before someone jumps down my throat for that statement)

[the shrimp]

Why are the French institutions dead set against this pilot who seems to know too much? Couldn't it be to hide some major defects of the Airbus technology? Then, why?

[OutOfRunWay]

There arent any major Defects in Airbus technology that AI and the French Government were already aware of 20 Years ago. There is no coverup of major Design Flaws going on. If there had been major defects, the older Airbusses would have had their wings fall off by now, or something.

However, it is notable that the french Government has alway dealt harshly with people who throw a spanner in the works.

The fact that the row is essentially over smaller issues which every new design has, especially one as radical as the Airbus was in the early 80s, makes the whole problem of the governmant stamping down hard even worse.

Essentially people are being screwed over issues that could have been rectified with a small change in attitude towards design policy.

Unfortunately the design was and is treated as holy scripture.

My two Eurocents.

OORW

[DozyWannabe]

He doesn't "know too much" the_shrimp, he's a raving loony who used to be a well-respected pilot and engineer, but who couldn't cope with the fact that his friend and colleague screwed the pooch. He then spent most of his time developing ever more fanciful theories as to how the evil AI and French government collaborated on making his mate out to be the bad guy.

OutOfRunWay : They *did* change the design though, albeit too late to save Nick Warner and his crew. The Habsheim incident had nothing to do with mode confusion though, that one was down to ill-advised showing off in a low-energy situation.

[OutOfRunWay]

can you remember and remind me what exactly happened to the A330 testflight?

I can very vaguely remember there being something about the altitude capture mode coming on because of a very low alt selection, and the autothrottle letting the speed decay, because speed protection was supressed, or something?

Cheers, OORW

[DozyWannabe]

From PBL's notes in Risks Digest:

Under the correct checklist settings, the pitch (nose-upward angle) of the aircraft on takeoff would have been automatically controlled when the autopilot was engaged. The co-pilot who was flying rotated on take-off to a high angle. Meanwhile, Warner engaged the autopilot (which took three tries) and `failed' the left engine. It's surmised they were expecting the autopilot to return the aircraft to a precise pitch as it handled the situation, as planned. The aircraft was flying in a different control regime than planned due to the mistaken altitude-capture setting of 2000ft rather than 7000ft on the autopilot. Pitch was not 'protected' by the autopilot in this regime. Speed decayed rapidly since the nose did not go down, the aircraft was unable to maintain lateral control when it was below the airspeed required to do so, and yawed and rolled. After this situation had developed, Warner throttled back the right engine to regain lateral control, as well as regaining wings-level and nose-level. When control was regained, the ground was just a little too close.

Hope that helps.