TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Danny's agreement we have decided to split this thread from this point on into an R&N thread dealing with the practical side of the accident and investigation (plus the AB/Boeing flame wars, of course
) and a new one in Tech Log where academia can discuss the computer/logic/interface/accident HF psychology what-have-yous. Both very important topics, but the intermix is beginning to cloud the horizon for a lot of people.
New thread at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3590625
We therefore ask that any posts on the latter (any design philosophy/systems/accident investigation theories or practices that do NOT directly relate to the specifics of this accident) be placed into the new thread. Thank you all.
) and a new one in Tech Log where academia can discuss the computer/logic/interface/accident HF psychology what-have-yous. Both very important topics, but the intermix is beginning to cloud the horizon for a lot of people.New thread at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3590625
We therefore ask that any posts on the latter (any design philosophy/systems/accident investigation theories or practices that do NOT directly relate to the specifics of this accident) be placed into the new thread. Thank you all.
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so and other thoughts
marciovp,
I notice that your subsequent posts haven't answered any of my tech points.
I presume your *talented and experienced friend* is George Rock. See his blog and how he's amended some of his early interpretations of the CGH graphs. At least, he's acknowledged his basic ignorance of the 320 systems, but very honestly changed his arguments after some correspondance with 320 pilots.
I wish I could say the same about your defence of the Brazilian TAM pilots.
I notice that your subsequent posts haven't answered any of my tech points.
I presume your *talented and experienced friend* is George Rock. See his blog and how he's amended some of his early interpretations of the CGH graphs. At least, he's acknowledged his basic ignorance of the 320 systems, but very honestly changed his arguments after some correspondance with 320 pilots.
I wish I could say the same about your defence of the Brazilian TAM pilots.
You are right that I am defending the pilots, but not from TAM only, from everywhere, especially the ones that any longer can talk. I can admit that in the TAM accident there was pilot error although I find this unlikely because how comes these two pilots would make such an elementar mistake, especially knowing that they had landed on the same day with the same plane without problems. I also understand that it is highly unlikely that the A329 fly-by-wire had a malfunction that made it difficult for the pilots to handle, but why not consider this possibility too? Of course it could be both… that is the AB system not preventing pilots from committing an error…
I am impressed how some pilots here who fly A320 are so adamant and “sure” that the A320 software could never go wrong. The only way I can understand this is based on some understandable fear that some day they themselves could be in such a predicament caused by the plane’s malfunction…Just a wild interpretation…
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by marciovp
It came from a friend of many years
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Lemurian
I don't know about TAM or marcio's friend's employer but a software change, initiated by AI, finds its application in all the fleet within a period of one month, as each aircraft goes to its A or B checks.We have 150 planes.
As a matter of fact, the only two major changes -or differences - in the fleet are 1/-about the arrival of crystal screens instead of the CRTs and 2/-a modification in the braking system of the 318 which is now being introduced as well to the new entrants in the fleet. Sorry, I forget 3/- the fuel system of the 319LR.
As a matter of fact, the only two major changes -or differences - in the fleet are 1/-about the arrival of crystal screens instead of the CRTs and 2/-a modification in the braking system of the 318 which is now being introduced as well to the new entrants in the fleet. Sorry, I forget 3/- the fuel system of the 319LR.
I presume that *pane* means *failure*.
If that is the case, You get a *Retard* warning.
If that is the case, You get a *Retard* warning.
Having a second reading of the letter, the only explanation that comes to my mind is that someone just imagined the CGH accident with the #2 T/L at idle -meaning an exoneration of any pilot error, but putting the blame on a faulty TLA input to the ATHR system
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, I will try.
-
Will try.
PLEASE go back to this guy and ask him to find out HOW this is simulated. I have today spoken to a very experienced A320 trainer and sim instructor who is puzzled as to how the sim can be set up to replicate this sort of failure. If you can find out, and, of course it is not just rubbish(!) I feel this may just be a link to what MIGHT have happened at CGH.
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
marciovp
As said earlier and many times, that warning was not accepted by both the regulatory instances and the airlines' ops safety people.
I have not seen it or heard it. It was not deemed - by people who make flight safety a living - as more confusing that the earlier annunciation.
Stop trying to defend the B/S about "as many softwares as number of airplanes "
As far as I can see, only two of them have gained your support...and I haven't seen you on the HKT forum in which the pilots have been -are still being - savagely torn apart ... Is that a sign of a crusade for *DEFEND THE PILOTS* or have you got another agenda ?
Cite one pilot on this site ! and . yes, *wild* is the right word.
Having flown 6500 hrs + on the 320 family, being a management captain with access to flight safety, being involved with accident reports, having ratings which cover 737,741, 2, 3 and 4, plus Tristars and a number of others, having test flown 757,767 and MD-81, I can say that the airplane is about the safest I've flown, with the most accurate handling, the smoothest flight controls and auto pilot. I just wish other manufacturers would copy some of its features. Note that I don't say, like the pilots who manage the Airbus Driver site :"Resistance is futile..."
As a final note : That crew lost it in CGH because they didn't have the right picture of the conditions (weather, runway state, landing performance, SOPs) which they carried along since the flight preparation at Porto Alegre.
The rest is a matter of training, fleet discipline, CRM and technical knowledge.
How come the TAM´s plane did not have the new software that would keep warning the pilots that the TL was on climb?...
I have not seen it or heard it. It was not deemed - by people who make flight safety a living - as more confusing that the earlier annunciation.
Stop trying to defend the B/S about "as many softwares as number of airplanes "
You are right that I am defending the pilots, but not from TAM only, from everywhere, especially the ones that any longer can talk
I am impressed how some pilots here who fly A320 are so adamant and “sure” that the A320 software could never go wrong. The only way I can understand this is based on some understandable fear that some day they themselves could be in such a predicament caused by the plane’s malfunction…Just a wild interpretation…
Having flown 6500 hrs + on the 320 family, being a management captain with access to flight safety, being involved with accident reports, having ratings which cover 737,741, 2, 3 and 4, plus Tristars and a number of others, having test flown 757,767 and MD-81, I can say that the airplane is about the safest I've flown, with the most accurate handling, the smoothest flight controls and auto pilot. I just wish other manufacturers would copy some of its features. Note that I don't say, like the pilots who manage the Airbus Driver site :"Resistance is futile..."
As a final note : That crew lost it in CGH because they didn't have the right picture of the conditions (weather, runway state, landing performance, SOPs) which they carried along since the flight preparation at Porto Alegre.
The rest is a matter of training, fleet discipline, CRM and technical knowledge.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As said earlier and many times, that warning was not accepted by both the regulatory instances and the airlines' ops safety people.
How was all this process about the warning documented ?
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exchanging ideas...not sure of anything...searching.
As said earlier and many times, that warning was not accepted by both the regulatory instances and the airlines' ops safety people.
I have not seen it or heard it. It was not deemed - by people who make flight safety a living - as more confusing that the earlier annunciation.
Stop trying to defend the B/S about "as many softwares as number of airplanes "
I have not seen it or heard it. It was not deemed - by people who make flight safety a living - as more confusing that the earlier annunciation.
Stop trying to defend the B/S about "as many softwares as number of airplanes "
As far as I can see, only two of them have gained your support...and I haven't seen you on the HKT forum in which the pilots have been -are still being - savagely torn apart ... Is that a sign of a crusade for *DEFEND THE PILOTS* or have you got another agenda ?
Cite one pilot on this site ! and . yes, *wild* is the right word.
Having flown 6500 hrs + on the 320 family, being a management captain with access to flight safety, being involved with accident reports, having ratings which cover 737,741, 2, 3 and 4, plus Tristars and a number of others, having test flown 757,767 and MD-81, I can say that the airplane is about the safest I've flown, with the most accurate handling, the smoothest flight controls and auto pilot. I just wish other manufacturers would copy some of its features. Note that I don't say, like the pilots who manage the Airbus Driver site :"Resistance is futile..."
As a final note : That crew lost it in CGH because they didn't have the right picture of the conditions (weather, runway state, landing performance, SOPs) which they carried along since the flight preparation at Porto Alegre.
The rest is a matter of training, fleet discipline, CRM and technical knowledge.
Having flown 6500 hrs + on the 320 family, being a management captain with access to flight safety, being involved with accident reports, having ratings which cover 737,741, 2, 3 and 4, plus Tristars and a number of others, having test flown 757,767 and MD-81, I can say that the airplane is about the safest I've flown, with the most accurate handling, the smoothest flight controls and auto pilot. I just wish other manufacturers would copy some of its features. Note that I don't say, like the pilots who manage the Airbus Driver site :"Resistance is futile..."
As a final note : That crew lost it in CGH because they didn't have the right picture of the conditions (weather, runway state, landing performance, SOPs) which they carried along since the flight preparation at Porto Alegre.
The rest is a matter of training, fleet discipline, CRM and technical knowledge.
Now let me say that you are 1000 times or more better qualified to say anything about the A320 (or other big planes) than I am and, believe me I am thankful that you are spending anytime with an ex-Cherokee guy, I pay a lot of attention and I respect what you say. But, sorry if, on the other hand I do think, and I read (just read Boeing X Airbus) and I am trying to understand. Are you Lemurian 100% sure that it is impossible to have a malfunction in the A320 that complicated the performance of those pilots? My God, if I give a conflicting order to my computer...it will let me know this instantly by beeping, becoming blue, etc. In the A32o there was one motor in full reverse, the pilot trying desperatelly to brake the plan and on motor pulling forward as if it wanted to fly. And...silence... no warning... Are you sure Lemurian that this is totally OK? Before ending I do agree with you about the conditions of the flight since Porto Alegre that may have much to do with what happéned. I have mentioned them. With respect for your experience and expertise.
Lemurian;
I could not agree with you more strongly. Well said.
PJ2, (DC9, DC8, B727, L1011, B767, A320/319, A340/330 endorsed, past Airbus instructor, fully involved in flight safety and data work).
I can say that the airplane is about the safest I've flown, with the most accurate handling, the smoothest flight controls and auto pilot. I just wish other manufacturers would copy some of its features.
. . . .
The rest is a matter of training, fleet discipline, CRM and technical knowledge.
. . . .
The rest is a matter of training, fleet discipline, CRM and technical knowledge.
PJ2, (DC9, DC8, B727, L1011, B767, A320/319, A340/330 endorsed, past Airbus instructor, fully involved in flight safety and data work).
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny that the bus has flown so many hours and yet, the TR MEL has generally never been an issue, nor does there appear to be many operators having problems with the TL position and EPR/N1.
It may be, that this particular bus was defective, it may be an issue similar to the SE go around that was accidentally discovered, but so far, it appears from the evidence that one TL was left in a position where it should not have been.
Sometimes there are esoteric circumstances and other times there are imple reasons, untill all is known, it would appear that this may have an accident caused by a human error.
As for the post about the three go a rounds by a nwa crew, I am not sure it ever happened, although have certainly heard the story often enough and secondly, I think it might have been an issue not related to the a/c but more due to infamiliarity with same. I know of one pilot, who flew the AB the lenght of the rwy at 50 feet while the AB maintained Vref beautifully. He had not retarded the TLs
It may be, that this particular bus was defective, it may be an issue similar to the SE go around that was accidentally discovered, but so far, it appears from the evidence that one TL was left in a position where it should not have been.
Sometimes there are esoteric circumstances and other times there are imple reasons, untill all is known, it would appear that this may have an accident caused by a human error.
As for the post about the three go a rounds by a nwa crew, I am not sure it ever happened, although have certainly heard the story often enough and secondly, I think it might have been an issue not related to the a/c but more due to infamiliarity with same. I know of one pilot, who flew the AB the lenght of the rwy at 50 feet while the AB maintained Vref beautifully. He had not retarded the TLs
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
marciovp
But I am a professional pilot with nearly 40 years in the air and my approach to flying is different to yours : I know that mistakes can be made. I know that sometimes the failures in a system could lead us pilots to a jam and I have lost enough friends in air accidents, some of them whom I have trained, to know that air safety is an endless repetitive task. I am fortunate that I have reached a level where I can be heard.
That's one of the reasons why that as far as this accident is concerned, adding an extra warning is just a cosmetic solution that will allay the public's fears and the political showings, but won't bring anything to avoiding another accident of this style.
The solutions, I'm afraid are mainly to be found inside flight operations departments.
Look it up as :" MD80 crash in Phuket"
Talk to the manufacturers -as similar happenings exist with Boeing, too (related in this forum but of course totally disregarded by most of the posters. Example of tunnel vision?) and talk to the certifying authorities. And see how such a low-occurrence mishandling will change the airplanes'design.
As for your aviation bookshelves, I am not sure that *B vs A* is a reference. I have it too, but I would recommend :
Regards
if I was flying A320 I would be afraid to admit that someday I could be a victim of a failure on its computers. It would be reassuring to me to believe that there is nothing wronmg with the plane... This is just human.
That's one of the reasons why that as far as this accident is concerned, adding an extra warning is just a cosmetic solution that will allay the public's fears and the political showings, but won't bring anything to avoiding another accident of this style.
The solutions, I'm afraid are mainly to be found inside flight operations departments.
Where is the HKT forum Lemurian?
In the A32o there was one motor in full reverse, the pilot trying desperatelly to brake the plan and on motor pulling forward as if it wanted to fly. And...silence... no warning... Are you sure Lemurian that this is totally OK?
As for your aviation bookshelves, I am not sure that *B vs A* is a reference. I have it too, but I would recommend :
- The naked pilot, by David Beattie
- Aircraft Safety, by Shari Stamford Cross
- The pilot's burden, by Capt Buck
- Air Disasters, especially vol 3, by McArthur Job
Regards
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will read...thanks and...my friend...
Lemurian, be sure that I will read the books you recommended, BOAC I have been in contact with my friend who intermediated the letter and this is what he said:
Marcio
For sure there us among aviators, in this sense, a deep dichotomy between the ones who accept as being natural the so called Auto Flight System, a group where I belong, and the ones that even knowing that this is an irreversible process, still demonize any technological progress,
This is indeed a curiosity because if this is the casem this last group should not be flying. This is what I
Think.
This is dificult? No doubt it is, very, I agree. But even though what should we do?
I passed to you the letter "as was" without examining it. Now I am going to talk with a friend of mine who
Is instructor of the Airbus A320. Let´s see what will transpire!
Apparenty the letter writter exagerated and itseems to me that the text lacks the precision of concepts.
We will return to the subject,
Embrace
Decididamente, o que há entre Aviadores, neste sentido, é uma profunda dicotomia entre os que aceitam com mais naturalidade o chamado Auto Flight System, grupo no qual eu me encontro, e os que mesmo sabendo que trata-se de um processo irreversível, ainda assim amaldiçoam quaisquer conquistas tecnológicas.
Trata-se, portanto, de uma curiosidade; porque sendo assim, este último grupo não deveria voar! É o que eu penso!
É difícil? Sem dúvida é, muito, eu concordo. Mas, mesmo assim, fazer o que?
É difícil? Sem dúvida é, muito, eu concordo. Mas, mesmo assim, fazer o que?
Passei a mensagem "as was", sem examiná-la. Assim sendo, vou conversar com um amigo meu que é instrutor de Airbus A320. Vejamos no que dá!
Aparentemente, o redator exagerou e me parece que o texto carece de precisão de conceito.
Voltamos a este assunto,
Um abraço,
Trata-se, portanto, de uma curiosidade; porque sendo assim, este último grupo não deveria voar! É o que eu penso!
É difícil? Sem dúvida é, muito, eu concordo. Mas, mesmo assim, fazer o que?
É difícil? Sem dúvida é, muito, eu concordo. Mas, mesmo assim, fazer o que?
Passei a mensagem "as was", sem examiná-la. Assim sendo, vou conversar com um amigo meu que é instrutor de Airbus A320. Vejamos no que dá!
Aparentemente, o redator exagerou e me parece que o texto carece de precisão de conceito.
Voltamos a este assunto,
Um abraço,
Marcio
For sure there us among aviators, in this sense, a deep dichotomy between the ones who accept as being natural the so called Auto Flight System, a group where I belong, and the ones that even knowing that this is an irreversible process, still demonize any technological progress,
This is indeed a curiosity because if this is the casem this last group should not be flying. This is what I
Think.
This is dificult? No doubt it is, very, I agree. But even though what should we do?
I passed to you the letter "as was" without examining it. Now I am going to talk with a friend of mine who
Is instructor of the Airbus A320. Let´s see what will transpire!
Apparenty the letter writter exagerated and itseems to me that the text lacks the precision of concepts.
We will return to the subject,
Embrace
Last edited by marciovp; 21st Sep 2007 at 15:06. Reason: To translate
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decididamente, o que há entre Aviadores, neste sentido, é uma profunda dicotomia entre os que aceitam com mais naturalidade o chamado Auto Flight System, grupo no qual eu me encontro, e os que mesmo sabendo que trata-se de um processo irreversível, ainda assim amaldiçoam quaisquer conquistas tecnológicas.
It is over all a *dichotomy* between professionals who know and understand their tools and somebody who is so deep in his prejudice that he could write at least an assinine affirmation with every single sentence he wrote.
And don't give me the bull**** about me accepting just *very naturally the so-called auto flight system*, for those who curse modern technology have - should have - no place in a modern cockpit.THEY ARE DANGEROUS !
And I thought that the macho testosterone-full attitude has disappeared from our airplanes !
Pathetic !
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
marciovp - I suggest to all readers that they ignore your post #2255 as not relevant to the accident.
I understand from Lemurian that no substantive information has come from your 'friend' and therefore we should ignore the contents of your post.
I understand from Lemurian that no substantive information has come from your 'friend' and therefore we should ignore the contents of your post.
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
marciovp
One should always be careful when quoting someone's writing.
Your added last paragraph changes everything in what your friend says about his correspondent .
For those interested, this is my translation :
Really, what exists between flyers on this subject is a deep dichotomy betweeen those who accept very naturally the so-called *Auto flight System*, group in which I place myself, and those who even though they know it as an irreversible process, still curse any technological conquest.
It is then a curiosity. What I think is that the second group should not fly .
Can't agree more !
Apparently, as often, I reacted too quickly. Apologies to all
One should always be careful when quoting someone's writing.
Your added last paragraph changes everything in what your friend says about his correspondent .
For those interested, this is my translation :
Really, what exists between flyers on this subject is a deep dichotomy betweeen those who accept very naturally the so-called *Auto flight System*, group in which I place myself, and those who even though they know it as an irreversible process, still curse any technological conquest.
It is then a curiosity. What I think is that the second group should not fly .
Can't agree more !
Apparently, as often, I reacted too quickly. Apologies to all
Last edited by Lemurian; 21st Sep 2007 at 13:38. Reason: Added last sentence, for fairness. Or attempt to
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
our dear CENIPA says it found the TL pedestal but does not show any photograph or any impression about it. And then sends the piece to the potential "wolf"...
Forget the conspiracy theory. Lawyers have a better, more efficient - and endless - way of dealing with suspected system bad designs. Witness the 18 years it took to implement the rudder mods to the 737.
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait BOAC
marciovp - I suggest to all readers that they ignore your post #2255 as not relevant to the accident.
I understand from Lemurian that no substantive information has come from your 'friend' and therefore we should ignore the contents of your post.
I understand from Lemurian that no substantive information has come from your 'friend' and therefore we should ignore the contents of your post.
See my translation of the e-mail I received from my friend who received the letter and sent to me in my previous poster 2293. I hope Lemurian will read it too.
Last edited by marciovp; 21st Sep 2007 at 15:14. Reason: to add something
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I agree - now things have changed. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The fact remains that you made an incomplete post in a foreign language on an 'English speaking' forum. Lemurian WAS of the same opinion until your edit. We will wait, but YOU would have been better to wait until the full answer came back and THEN post it in Portuguese with a translation. Then we can judge its value.
I support PPRuNe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm good people
If I had my way nobody should go away. We have one thing in common: we are searching of understanding. Some of us are much more experient than others and this makes the exchange of ideas more difficult. But everyone is entitled to his opinion until we have a final report from CENIPA...
I will be the first one to acknowledge if I made a mistake or if I changed my mind. Right now I am working on that letter that I published here and I myself am very interested to know about its source and veracity.
Lemurian, I am glad you are in agreement with my friend who sent me the letter. I know you would be.
BOAC, your point is well taken. I will be more carefull in the future but I was so excited when I read the letter that was sent to me by someone I trust that I just went ahead.
Regards to all.
I will be the first one to acknowledge if I made a mistake or if I changed my mind. Right now I am working on that letter that I published here and I myself am very interested to know about its source and veracity.
Lemurian, I am glad you are in agreement with my friend who sent me the letter. I know you would be.
BOAC, your point is well taken. I will be more carefull in the future but I was so excited when I read the letter that was sent to me by someone I trust that I just went ahead.
Regards to all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To Lemurian
Reference to:
#2276
Mr. Lemurian,
I never exchange any correspondence with PPRuNe' poster who is pilot for A320. I do NOT know any A320 pilot who has posted any comment on PPRuNe.
"basic ignorance" of mine about A320 systems, it is your presumption. You are utterly wrong about your insidious supposition.
Nose down, man!
It is a whopper of you.
I didn't change my mind about TAM 3054 Flight Data Recorder Graph.
I changed only one word, "stuck" by 'left', in the neutral position for capatin's sidestick on my posted comment in accordance with CVR hasn't brought any transcript about some PRIORITY RIGHT or LEFT call out.
All I have read here is useless to improve pilot skill because many pilots insist on comparing Boeing operation to Airbus performance.
It's ridiculous! Wast of time for professional pilots.
marciovp
I notice that your subsequent posts haven't answered any of my tech points.
I presume your *talented and experienced friend* is George Rock. See his blog and how he's amended some of his early interpretations of the CGH graphs. At least, he's acknowledged his basic ignorance of the 320 systems, but very honestly changed his arguments after some correspondance with 320 pilots.
I wish I could say the same about your defence of the Brazilian TAM pilots.
I presume your *talented and experienced friend* is George Rock. See his blog and how he's amended some of his early interpretations of the CGH graphs. At least, he's acknowledged his basic ignorance of the 320 systems, but very honestly changed his arguments after some correspondance with 320 pilots.
I wish I could say the same about your defence of the Brazilian TAM pilots.
after some correspondance with 320 pilots.
"basic ignorance" of mine about A320 systems, it is your presumption. You are utterly wrong about your insidious supposition.
Nose down, man!
amended some of his early interpretations of the CGH graphs
It is a whopper of you.
I didn't change my mind about TAM 3054 Flight Data Recorder Graph.
I changed only one word, "stuck" by 'left', in the neutral position for capatin's sidestick on my posted comment in accordance with CVR hasn't brought any transcript about some PRIORITY RIGHT or LEFT call out.
All I have read here is useless to improve pilot skill because many pilots insist on comparing Boeing operation to Airbus performance.
It's ridiculous! Wast of time for professional pilots.