Air France Safety report
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East Molesey, Surrey, UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captplaystation, I suppose you remember that the UK AAIB were also party to the Concorde investigation? And that you have read the appendix they were permitted to add, pointing out where they disagreed?
But the AAIB did not dissent from the BEA on any substantial issues, and they certainly did not argue in favour of any of the popular bar-room-chat points you threw into the ring.
Incidentally, it's true that in recent history there have been quite a few shameless attempts by national investigators to choose the most convenient "truth", but they have not been European. Namely the Egyptian version of what happened to the Egyptair 767, but remember the NTSB was in charge of that report, the truth came out in the NTSB part of it (as diplomatically phrased as possible), and the Egyptian version was an appendix to the main report.
Then there was the Egyptian report on Flash at Sharm el-Sheikh, which avoided the truth, but the BEA was allowed to append what really happened to the back of that report too. Then finally (for today) there was the Silk Air cover-up by Indonesia/Singapore. But even there, the NTSB was allowed to append its view. In that case the Board was so angry at the distortion it publicised its own summary of what happened.
The truth will out. It always does in the end, because the industry recognises rubbish when it sees it.
The allegations about FDRs "tampered with" at Habsheim came from the French SNPL (pilots' union), which had a major industrial row going with Air France at the time and wanted flight engineers on everthing including the A320. The SNPL wanted to kill the A320 at birth, and they saw this as their chance. Well, history shows they didn't succeed, but a lot of the mud they slung has stuck in people's selective memories because the media loved the union's accusations so much at the time.
But the AAIB did not dissent from the BEA on any substantial issues, and they certainly did not argue in favour of any of the popular bar-room-chat points you threw into the ring.
Incidentally, it's true that in recent history there have been quite a few shameless attempts by national investigators to choose the most convenient "truth", but they have not been European. Namely the Egyptian version of what happened to the Egyptair 767, but remember the NTSB was in charge of that report, the truth came out in the NTSB part of it (as diplomatically phrased as possible), and the Egyptian version was an appendix to the main report.
Then there was the Egyptian report on Flash at Sharm el-Sheikh, which avoided the truth, but the BEA was allowed to append what really happened to the back of that report too. Then finally (for today) there was the Silk Air cover-up by Indonesia/Singapore. But even there, the NTSB was allowed to append its view. In that case the Board was so angry at the distortion it publicised its own summary of what happened.
The truth will out. It always does in the end, because the industry recognises rubbish when it sees it.
The allegations about FDRs "tampered with" at Habsheim came from the French SNPL (pilots' union), which had a major industrial row going with Air France at the time and wanted flight engineers on everthing including the A320. The SNPL wanted to kill the A320 at birth, and they saw this as their chance. Well, history shows they didn't succeed, but a lot of the mud they slung has stuck in people's selective memories because the media loved the union's accusations so much at the time.
Last edited by shortfinals; 25th Aug 2009 at 14:17. Reason: Wrong edit first time
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of Habscheim, I saw the Youtube video, and did not see anything that defies explanation. You've got an ac which got very low and slow and was sinking still. So how do you expect them to get it over the top if they got no momentum and even if they floored the gas which I did not hear happen it would take a while to turn this thing around. On an ac loaded to the max.
What I cannot believe is how someone would perform a tricky low-pass maneouver on an ac loaded with passengers, with 2 low-hour pilots, with a forrest growing right at the end of the runway. What happens if you don;t clear it? So
stupid
What I cannot believe is how someone would perform a tricky low-pass maneouver on an ac loaded with passengers, with 2 low-hour pilots, with a forrest growing right at the end of the runway. What happens if you don;t clear it? So
stupid
Last edited by vovachan; 25th Aug 2009 at 22:54.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are you talking about?
robertbartsch
"Is this based, in part, on the findings of the '88 Paris Air Show crash where the court found that someone tampered with the BBs?"
What accident at the '88 Paris Air Show? There was no Paris Air Show in '88 so there certainly was no crash!
I can guess what you might mean but if you cannot get the basics right, then your views on conspiracy are, IMHO, worthless.
You are the weakest link - goodbye!
"Is this based, in part, on the findings of the '88 Paris Air Show crash where the court found that someone tampered with the BBs?"
What accident at the '88 Paris Air Show? There was no Paris Air Show in '88 so there certainly was no crash!
I can guess what you might mean but if you cannot get the basics right, then your views on conspiracy are, IMHO, worthless.
You are the weakest link - goodbye!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
saman
I sincerely hope that robertbartsch is not a commercial pilot, because he seems incapable of learning or remembering anything. He has been reminded many times that the A320 accident was at Habsheim, not Paris, but the same old story still comes out.
Captain "Rambo" Asseline had never carried out any demo flight nor had ever seen that airfield and its forest. Let's hope the AF safety culture has improved since then.
I don't know who's behind this, but I respect Boeing enough to know they wouldn't use a village idiot like robertbartsch to spread BS.
Captain "Rambo" Asseline had never carried out any demo flight nor had ever seen that airfield and its forest. Let's hope the AF safety culture has improved since then.
I don't know who's behind this, but I respect Boeing enough to know they wouldn't use a village idiot like robertbartsch to spread BS.
Last edited by Dysag; 25th Aug 2009 at 20:00.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vovachan
What I cannot believe is how someone would perform a tricky low-pass maneouver on an ac loaded with passengers, with 2 low-hour pilots, with a forrest growing right at the end of the runway. What happens if you don;t clear it? So stupid
- the flight controls didn't follow the pilot inputs ?
- the engines didn't deliver on time ?
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vovachan
What I cannot believe is how someone would perform a tricky low-pass maneouver on an ac loaded with passengers, with 2 low-hour pilots, with a forrest growing right at the end of the runway. What happens if you don;t clear it? So stupid
What I cannot believe is how someone would perform a tricky low-pass maneouver on an ac loaded with passengers, with 2 low-hour pilots, with a forrest growing right at the end of the runway. What happens if you don;t clear it? So stupid
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East Molesey, Surrey, UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture - if you read the report you'd know the answers to the implied questions you framed.
It's in French, but here it is: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1988/f-kc...f-kc880626.pdf
Why do I suspect you'd rather stick with your prejudices than educate yourself?
It's in French, but here it is: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1988/f-kc...f-kc880626.pdf
Why do I suspect you'd rather stick with your prejudices than educate yourself?
Last edited by shortfinals; 26th Aug 2009 at 12:56. Reason: too many words
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 low hour pilots? Who told you that vovachan? Asseline was Air France chief check and training pilot on the A320 fleet. You would do well to read both sides of the story before you jump to conclusions.
And then they decided to do the lowest, slowest flyby possible using the alpha floor (aoa limiting) protection system to supply TOGA power at the last possible second. Their mistake was to be ignorant of the fact that alpha floor is inhibited below 30 radio. By the time they realised something was amiss and pushed the thrust levers forward it was way too late, the CFM56 (like any large jet engine) takes time to spool up.
Doesn't sound like safe decision making. Can't blame the a/c.
LD
Doesn't sound like safe decision making. Can't blame the a/c.
LD
Their mistake was to be ignorant of the fact that alpha floor is inhibited below 30 radio. By the time they realised something was amiss and pushed the thrust levers forward it was way too late
When you talk about the crew we, as professionals (I hope) should consider the human elements of knowledge base, skill based and following rules etc. To do otherwise is going to result in a downward spiral to this thread
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirDisaster.Com: Investigations: Air France 296
However, with all this, (and despite the 'black box swapping' that is alleged/proven to have happened) I would still uphold the verdict of guilty and expect the court to do the same in this case. This is because the duty of appellate courts is to 1) review for 'clear error' and 2)uphold the verdict of the lower court wherever possible
* I see that on just about every appellate decision handed down, lol
Ultimate decision is the pilot's and ultimate responsibility as well. But this does point to a culture of 'safety failure' @ AF and culture that prevented this pilot from speaking up (or not thinking about it enough to have something to say) This is why the fact that (only in America) a pilot can divert an aircraft and kick off a purser seems ultimately important to me for flight safety. If the French pilot had half the balls of that Captain (that would give him approximately 6) he would have said ' surtout pas!' when ordered to do an ultra low speed gear down fly by at as close to stall speed to show off 'stall protection' WTF?? (like, hey man, I got a NEW BULLET PROOF VEST!, C'mon...SHOOT ME!)
OEB 19/1 (May 1988): Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude. This means that it was already known before the accident that the engines sometimes did not respond normally to the pilot's commands on the Airbus A320. However Air France did not inform their pilots about this anomaly. After the Habsheim accident, the engines have been modified (OEB 19/2, August 1988). OEB 06/2 (May 1988): Baro-Setting Cross Check. It stated that the current design for barometric altitude indication on the Airbus A320 did not comply with airworthiness. This could be a hint why the aircraft was as low as 30 ft (9 m) above the runway whereas Asseline affirms that the altimeter indicated 100 ft (30 m). These OEBs were sent to the company (Air France), but they had not been handed to the pilots. In fact both the engines and the altimetric system have been modified after the crash, which indicates that they did not function correctly at that time, but Airbus Industries was not held responsible of anything by the French Court, the whole responsibility was given to the pilots and to the organizers of the airshow.
how? well, lets say the lower judge convicts, saying 'the pilot is clearly at fault because he didnt apply the thrust in time: GUILTY'
but evidence in the case indicates that he DID apply thrust. HOWEVER there is also evidence that the pilot was negligently too low, DID NOT HAVE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AS REQUIRED (thought he was at 100 ft, whereas ears and a look out the window would have told him otherwise) and thus with that evidence considered would still be held at fault remember: the higher court looks for evidence in the record to support the lower courts ruling.
but evidence in the case indicates that he DID apply thrust. HOWEVER there is also evidence that the pilot was negligently too low, DID NOT HAVE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AS REQUIRED (thought he was at 100 ft, whereas ears and a look out the window would have told him otherwise) and thus with that evidence considered would still be held at fault remember: the higher court looks for evidence in the record to support the lower courts ruling.
* We agree with the trial court, whose ruling comes to this court clothed in the presumption of correctness..
Doesn't sound like safe decision making. Can't blame the a/c.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is naive to hope pilots will stop slamming other pilots. It's nice, but what pilots do, other than fly, is throw stink at each other, or defend others in the face of mountains of evidence. It was ever so. I know, I are one.
Sheltering a f/u prevents others from learning the downside of f ing up.
Sheltering a f/u prevents others from learning the downside of f ing up.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Age: 73
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the French pilot had half the balls of that Captain (that would give him approximately 6) he would have said ' surtout pas!' when ordered to do an ultra low speed gear down fly by at as close to stall speed to show off 'stall protection' WTF?? (like, hey man, I got a NEW BULLET PROOF VEST!, C'mon...SHOOT ME!)
He was not ordered to fly that low, neither that slow, he is a crazy guy and realy should bear all the blame as he volontarily broke the rules set for this fly.
End of story.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 'Locked door'
And then they decided to do the lowest, slowest flyby possible using the alpha floor (aoa limiting) protection system to supply TOGA power at the last possible second. Their mistake was to be ignorant of the fact that alpha floor is inhibited below 30 radio. By the time they realised something was amiss and pushed the thrust levers forward it was way too late, the CFM56 (like any large jet engine) takes time to spool up.
Originally Posted by 'shortfinals'
CONF iture - if you read the report you'd know the answers to the implied questions you framed.
It's in French, but here it is: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1988/f-kc...f-kc880626.pdf
Why do I suspect you'd rather stick with your prejudices than educate yourself?
It's in French, but here it is: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1988/f-kc...f-kc880626.pdf
Why do I suspect you'd rather stick with your prejudices than educate yourself?
But if you’re ready to educate me, please explain how the elevators didn’t follow the full back stick order and actually just did the opposite ? (page 37 in the report)
Once again, I firmly believe the crew did attempt something stupid, but it was the BEA duty to underline what went wrong in the airplane as well …
Last edited by CONF iture; 26th Aug 2009 at 22:14.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture
Because it would then have stalled and the outcome would have probably been everyone dying! He did not fully understand what he was doing with the aircraft. The design actually saved lives!
But if you’re ready to educate me, please explain how the elevators didn’t follow the full back stick order and actually just did the opposite ? (page 37 in the report)