Mont St Odile crash latest news....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Last edited by captplaystation; 28th Mar 2008 at 19:01.
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Lemurian; 29th Mar 2008 at 07:57. Reason: cosmetics
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 (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 ?
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 (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 ?
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture:
As a pilot community, why didn’t we protect one of us ?
As a pilot community, why didn’t we protect one of us ?
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pretty far away
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Me Myself; 31st Mar 2008 at 14:08.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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"
Last edited by captplaystation; 29th Mar 2008 at 17:49.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 …
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/
Jean-Claude Boetsch is now a retired journalist, and was one of the passengers in Habsheim.
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.
Originally Posted by DZ
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
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 …
"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"
The airplane is not at fault.
The airplane won’t be at fault.
Many posted links are coming from http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/
Jean-Claude Boetsch is now a retired journalist, and was one of the passengers in Habsheim.
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: France/Africa
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the upper left corner of this page : PPRuNe = Professional Pilots Rumour Network
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...
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
If, by 'plague-stricken', you mean 'madder than a sack of badgers and more paranoid than Stalin on a cocaine binge', then yes.
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...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: France/Africa
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Television (Channel 4) about Norbert Jacquet : http://jacno.com/vdo/equinox-90-extraits.wmv
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: I know EXACTLY where I am..
Age: 54
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 : 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.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: I know EXACTLY where I am..
Age: 54
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dozy
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From PBL's notes in Risks Digest:
Hope that helps.
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.
