Airbus crash/training flight

[DC-ATE]

I was the one who brought up the idea of the (US) NTSB possibly being involved in this simply because there seemed to be some question from some here as to possible "cover-up" of facts if it made Airbus look bad.

[Dysag]

DC-ATE

If you hint at the possibility of any French cover-up your post will be deleted by the mods.

[Coquelet]

The NTSB is indeed involved , like the BFV (Germany) and the TAIC (New Zealand):

Bienvenue sur le site du Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses

[DC-ATE]

I was not the one "hinting" at a cover-up. There seemed to be some concern by others that a possibility existed. That is why I questioned whether or not any other agency would be involved in trying to "read" the recorders.

[uncle_maxwell]

accident investigations and conflicts of interest

In theory there is always the possibility of a cover up or 'polished' report - there are too many parties involved (manufacturer, airline, insurances, politicians, victims' families etc.), many of which have clearly opposed interests and some of which would be ready to pay good money to have first look at the data and the possibility to 'edit' it.

Economists and anyone studying agency and game theory could write (and have written) theses on this.

I would personally argue for FDR/CVR data/readability to be independently verified by several parties and the data to be made public after incidents/accidents. This way everybody (including armchair theorists) can make their own interpretation and there can be a healthy discussion around the facts - potentially eliminating the possibility of cover ups or biased reports.

But then accidents are a sensitive issue - especially when people lost their lives - and of course CVR/FDR may only be a small part of the puzzle.

IMHO sunlight is the best disinfectant though. Transparency works wonders - in any latitude...

[Mr @ Spotty M]

As pointed out the NTSB is involved as confirmed by Airbus e-mail today, reason is V2500 engines fitted, they come under US manufacture and l guess the FAA.

[Massey AvMan]

German Pilots

I have read that XL Airways have said they are not now, and never will release the names of the German Pilots. Is this usual?

[kiwiandrew]

"I have read that XL Airways have said they are not now, and never will release the names of the German Pilots. Is this usual?

My understanding of it was that the XL spokesperson said that it was out of respect for the wishes of the next of kin , and if the next of kin dont want the names released then they shouldnt be released. ( personally I have always thought the releasing of names a bit goulish ... if you didnt know the person what possible relevance can it have to you , and if you did know them personally presumably you will find out anyway ... preferably not by reading their names in the media )

[KRH270/12]

@ uncle maxwell

'Transparency works wonders - in any latitude'

thats not allways true... imagine you are the first aicraft manufacturer with a brand new all fly by wire aircraft, but instead of flying and accepting thrust demands it turns into a giant harvester cutting down trees...

ups ! has anyone seen those recorders we recoverd... anybody... come on boys, they must be somewhere... ah there they are........

[Dysag]

KRH, neither of the AFR Habsheim pilots had ever performed a demo flight

"Neither of the pilots had ever performed a demonstration flight, and neither had ever seen Habsheim airfield"

1990 | 1069 | Flight Archive

Furthermore, just read the cvr translation and then say who downed those pax.

Capt "Rambo" Asseline had no idea what he was getting into.

AirDisaster.Com: Air France 296 CVR Transcript

[Azzy]

A320 Flight Test accident

I Hope at least one pilot of the A320 France flight test have past FLight Test experience. and the Flight test plan (Flight Test Schedule) is an approved flight test schedule.

[philbky]

Interesting that the NTSB have been asked to participate, seemingly because of the origin of the engines. Not quite sure why this is legally or technically necessary - normally the contribution from the engine manufacturer is sufficient, so either the French wish to have impartial observation or there is some other reason we are not party to.

[TripleBravo]

skiingman,

you are fully right, I didn't mention the scale effect of a "real" industrial production. But then - it might cost a hundredth, meaning a third of the value of a car? You won't get it down much further, because of huge developing and testing efforts of such equipment. Speaking rather about a billion to be amortized, not single-digit-millions.

And I share your view on GA...

-----
Anyway, internationally agreed law foresees that there are participants of the land of the manufacturer of the airframe, the engine(s), the land in which the incident occurred and the land where the aircraft was registered. Nothing unusual here.

[ChristiaanJ]

KRH270/12,
Pity to see that, for your second post, you already show you have been taken in by the Asseline fiction.

...thats not allways true... imagine you are the first aicraft manufacturer with a brand new all fly by wire aircraft, but instead of flying and accepting thrust demands it turns into a giant harvester cutting down trees...
ups ! has anyone seen those recorders we recoverd... anybody... come on boys, they must be somewhere... ah there they are....

Anybody else needs any comment?

CJ

[atakacs]

Press release to day from BEA :
Protected boxes (CVR and DFDR) have resisted and seem intact, but it was not possible to extract any data. Additional work will be becessary, without being possible today to predict their result.

So they where structurally intact (which is what one would expect given the circumstances of this crash) but BEA can't read them... Hmmm.... Could it be that there is nothing to read on them, i.e. that they where not recording ? This is really intriguing as I am pretty sure that the BEA is well equipped to be able to retrieve data from an A320 recorder. The fact that they could not read anything from both is really puzzling.

[reynoldsno1]

Not quite sure why this is legally or technically necessary

...which was the point I was trying to make ... obviously poorly. Thank you philbky...

[krujje]

Interesting that the NTSB have been asked to participate, seemingly because of the origin of the engines. Not quite sure why this is legally or technically necessary - normally the contribution from the engine manufacturer is sufficient, so either the French wish to have impartial observation or there is some other reason we are not party to. Today 17:20

If the expertise of the engine manufacturer is needed by the BEA, and the engine manufacturer is in the US, then the US is entitled to acc rep status, thus the involvement of the NTSB. The legal basis for this is Annex 13

ICAO Annex 13:

5.23 Any State which on request provides information,
facilities or experts to the State conducting the investigation
shall be entitled to appoint an accredited representative to

participate in the investigation.

Also see that, under 5.18, there is a note:

Nothing in this Standard is intended to preclude the
State that designed or manufactured the powerplant or major
components of the aircraft from requesting participation in the

investigation of an accident.

[PJ2]

ChristiaanJ;

Anybody else needs any comment?

This old chestnut just won't die, will it?

From the DFDR:

[Jofm5]

Hansheim and this incident

PJ2 et al,

Asseline may or may not have been at fault within the Habsheim incident, I see references on the thread to both the CVR and DFDR information from that incidient - however if it is true that these mediums were witheld for a week, appear visually/physically different from what was taken off the ground to what was submitted to the investigation then there certainly looks to be something that needs to be explained - however here is not the right place to analyse the Habsheim incident and there are already previous threads covering it.

I dont personally think we can really compare the habsheim incident with what happened just off Perpignan as it would appear from reporting so far that the events are dissimilar: -

1) With the habsheim accident the lack of power resulted in a slow descent and impact into the forest, from the eye witness reports the NZ A320 impacted at a very great angle.

2) The habsheim incident occured whilst trying to recover from a low level flypast, whereas the NZ A320 was reportedly anywhere between 1000 & 3500 feet when apparent control was lost.

As SLF I am not qualified to say, but in the back of my mind it would appear to me to be more avionics related than power related (as Habsheim was) due to the nature and speed of the impact - but as we well know we will not know anything until the reports are released of the investigation.

Regards,

[Clandestino]

Regarding the Perpignan accident: still no radar plot, still no ATC transcripts, still no FDR readouts, still no CVR transcripts - still no idea what happened and don't let anyone convince you othervise.

Regardin the Habsheim: captain Michel Asseline has accepted that his actions during the flyby led to accident and does not support any of the conspiracy theories surrounding the crash. Habsheim accident was not power related, although Asseline's shell-shocked statement claiming that engines did not respond normally makes sense. You see, engines worked as designed and as certified but not as the crew had expected.

EDIT: The rest of the post was factually incorrect, I should have checked the report before replying. Thank you for correcting me and I apologize for making some untrue claims. Sorry folks.