Habsheim
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking for myself, I have grave reservations with the practice of treating every aviation accident as a criminal case regardless of circumstance, as seems to be the norm on the continent (and has happened here with similarly uncomfortable results).
What is certainly true is that the technical investigation and report by the BEA had no significant bearing on the outcome of the prosecution, and indeed the report practically handed Capt. Asseline a lifeline by pointing out the airline's slapdash approach to flight preparation and briefing. Why his legal team failed to take advantage of this remains baffling to me.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DozyW
I agree with you entirely on the criminalization of accidents.
The potential problem I see with the legal investigations into accidents in some places - Italy especially comes to mind - is that there's no parallel to the English inquest process. If there's a death, then the legal investigation into the circumstances involves the same sort of prosecutors who'd eventually be involved in filing charges against suspects.
The professional accident investigation could thus potentially be hindered and disrupted. It could make it difficult to get people to testify freely, since there's a clearer lingering threat of prosecution in the process. If inquiries into the causes and facts proceed before and without relevance to potential prosecutions, then I suspect there's more chance of getting to the bottom of the circumstances, and reducing the opportunities for repeats.
I agree with you entirely on the criminalization of accidents.
The potential problem I see with the legal investigations into accidents in some places - Italy especially comes to mind - is that there's no parallel to the English inquest process. If there's a death, then the legal investigation into the circumstances involves the same sort of prosecutors who'd eventually be involved in filing charges against suspects.
The professional accident investigation could thus potentially be hindered and disrupted. It could make it difficult to get people to testify freely, since there's a clearer lingering threat of prosecution in the process. If inquiries into the causes and facts proceed before and without relevance to potential prosecutions, then I suspect there's more chance of getting to the bottom of the circumstances, and reducing the opportunities for repeats.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investigators may testify during the legal proceedings, but their testimony is strictly limited to the content of the report.
Most of the myths that grew up around this case are a result of deliberate obfuscation on the part of legal representatives via press briefings in particular. This is why a lot of commonly understood aspects are in fact incorrect.
Thread Starter
Quote from roulishollandais:
"Is it usual to see such mistakes punished by nine months firm jail?"
Probably not in the UK, and AFAIK not in other Anglophone countries, but "usual" is not a word that can easily be applied to this accident. I know nothing of the judicial process that led to the sentence.
I tried my best to base my assessment as much as possible on my interpretation of the published DFDR, rather than the narrative of the reports, and have yet to finish reading the captain's account. If the published DFDR is good - and so far I haven't read anything that proves otherwise - I doubt that the three main errors I describe will need much amendment. They are harder on the crew than the BEA report, which - in the tradition of air accident findings - carefully avoided direct criticism.
My opinion is that no one should be imprisoned unless (s)he is found guilty of a criminal act, and I see nothing to suggest that at Habsheim. There were misjudgments that led to fatalities, and a degree of negligence may have been involved. But as long as sane pilots are sitting lawfully at the sharp end of an aircraft, it is difficult for a prosecutor to demonstrate a casual disregard for the safety of passengers and crew.
To pick up on Dozy Wannabe's point, the tendency in some countries to prosecute personnel who are responsible for the safe conduct of flights, and who are thought to have made errors of commission or omission, positively discourages self-reporting of an error that might cause an accident next time. On the other hand, there can be no authority without responsibility. So the captain must ultimately carry the can, but what sanction should be imposed when he drops it?
The reality is that, even when exonerated from any blame for a big, publicised accident, more often than not aspects of a captain's performance will be questioned overtly or covertly within the airline, effectively ruining his or her career. And, if the situation becomes intolerable, the very fact of having been in the public eye will frighten-off any prospective employer.
There may be worse punishments than nine months at the president's pleasure. Nowadays, senior politicians seem to redeem themselves from their indiscretions in a year or two. Pilots don't.
"Is it usual to see such mistakes punished by nine months firm jail?"
Probably not in the UK, and AFAIK not in other Anglophone countries, but "usual" is not a word that can easily be applied to this accident. I know nothing of the judicial process that led to the sentence.
I tried my best to base my assessment as much as possible on my interpretation of the published DFDR, rather than the narrative of the reports, and have yet to finish reading the captain's account. If the published DFDR is good - and so far I haven't read anything that proves otherwise - I doubt that the three main errors I describe will need much amendment. They are harder on the crew than the BEA report, which - in the tradition of air accident findings - carefully avoided direct criticism.
My opinion is that no one should be imprisoned unless (s)he is found guilty of a criminal act, and I see nothing to suggest that at Habsheim. There were misjudgments that led to fatalities, and a degree of negligence may have been involved. But as long as sane pilots are sitting lawfully at the sharp end of an aircraft, it is difficult for a prosecutor to demonstrate a casual disregard for the safety of passengers and crew.
To pick up on Dozy Wannabe's point, the tendency in some countries to prosecute personnel who are responsible for the safe conduct of flights, and who are thought to have made errors of commission or omission, positively discourages self-reporting of an error that might cause an accident next time. On the other hand, there can be no authority without responsibility. So the captain must ultimately carry the can, but what sanction should be imposed when he drops it?
The reality is that, even when exonerated from any blame for a big, publicised accident, more often than not aspects of a captain's performance will be questioned overtly or covertly within the airline, effectively ruining his or her career. And, if the situation becomes intolerable, the very fact of having been in the public eye will frighten-off any prospective employer.
There may be worse punishments than nine months at the president's pleasure. Nowadays, senior politicians seem to redeem themselves from their indiscretions in a year or two. Pilots don't.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Scott, Hi,
This may have been a display which had been practiced a number of times successfully, probably along a "standard R/W" somewhere. To have to alter the R/W on "short finals", to fly over the grass R/W at Habsheim, whilst still at Flight Idle, probably meant a loss of some of the intended or planned altitude.
The practice flights would not have had trees, I would suppose... Nor a requirement to alter to a parallel R/W when low. So just IF there had been a slow build up of thrust, or even a failure of one engine (and THIS DID NOT HAPPEN at Habsheim) an adequate climb at V2 ought to be enough ... If there were no trees along the extended centre line...
I can only guess that almost any other transport aircraft, if it attempted to follow the same trajectory, would have ended in a similar result.
This may have been a display which had been practiced a number of times successfully, probably along a "standard R/W" somewhere. To have to alter the R/W on "short finals", to fly over the grass R/W at Habsheim, whilst still at Flight Idle, probably meant a loss of some of the intended or planned altitude.
The practice flights would not have had trees, I would suppose... Nor a requirement to alter to a parallel R/W when low. So just IF there had been a slow build up of thrust, or even a failure of one engine (and THIS DID NOT HAPPEN at Habsheim) an adequate climb at V2 ought to be enough ... If there were no trees along the extended centre line...
I can only guess that almost any other transport aircraft, if it attempted to follow the same trajectory, would have ended in a similar result.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DW,
I fully agree about France: BEA matches the role of AAIB/NTSB.
In Italy though, the investigating magistrate seems to sometimes need to impound wreckage and potentially disrupt the equivalent of BEA.
Of course, there's a step from having a vigorous ongoing judicial process to interfering with the dedicated crash investigation. And, the criminalization is subject to the choices of the magistrate in question.
I fully agree about France: BEA matches the role of AAIB/NTSB.
In Italy though, the investigating magistrate seems to sometimes need to impound wreckage and potentially disrupt the equivalent of BEA.
Of course, there's a step from having a vigorous ongoing judicial process to interfering with the dedicated crash investigation. And, the criminalization is subject to the choices of the magistrate in question.
Thread Starter
Quote from Linktrained:
To have to alter the R/W on "short finals", to fly over the grass R/W at Habsheim, whilst still at Flight Idle, probably meant a loss of some of the intended or planned altitude.
Why would the a/c have to lose height when the PF was trying to reduce speed? And on an A320, the FBW specifically counteracts the tendency of an a/c to lose height in a turn.
To have to alter the R/W on "short finals", to fly over the grass R/W at Habsheim, whilst still at Flight Idle, probably meant a loss of some of the intended or planned altitude.
Why would the a/c have to lose height when the PF was trying to reduce speed? And on an A320, the FBW specifically counteracts the tendency of an a/c to lose height in a turn.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should have used the phrase "potential energy ..." again.
And I had forgotten/neglected to think, of THAT feature of A320's FBW.
I'm sorry.
After " Flight Idle " had been selected the aircraft was rather like a slightly under-powered glider, at least until TOGA was selected ( perhaps too late ).
And I had forgotten/neglected to think, of THAT feature of A320's FBW.
I'm sorry.
After " Flight Idle " had been selected the aircraft was rather like a slightly under-powered glider, at least until TOGA was selected ( perhaps too late ).
Last edited by Linktrained; 28th Jan 2014 at 11:55.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yesterday I saw Air Crash Investigation about this accident. It was the 1st time I'd seen it. I am not an Airbus pilot, but Boeing hydraulics. From those in the know was the TV program accurate? It did include many new aspects that I had not heard before. It also seems the captain is still trying to clear his name from blame.
Regarding the choice & change of RWY, it stated that the only data given by AF was from the tarmac RW02, but on arrival they saw the crowd aligned along RW34 and so deviated at the last moment causing them to be high and hence at idle thrust.
It did quote the captain as calling for A/T disconnect at low level. Why would he do that? It did confirm the brief was for a flypast >100' but they descended and for a moment were <30'. This is quite obvious from the video.
But back to the question: was the program accurate?
Regarding the choice & change of RWY, it stated that the only data given by AF was from the tarmac RW02, but on arrival they saw the crowd aligned along RW34 and so deviated at the last moment causing them to be high and hence at idle thrust.
It did quote the captain as calling for A/T disconnect at low level. Why would he do that? It did confirm the brief was for a flypast >100' but they descended and for a moment were <30'. This is quite obvious from the video.
But back to the question: was the program accurate?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the dramatisation was a little contrived (the 'pilot or plane' briefing in particular, especially given that the final report considered the airline's practices to be a significant factor). It had to condense and skip through some aspects of the case faster than others, but to the best of my knowledge it is a fairly accurate summary. Regarding the A/THR disconnect (which apparently did not happen as briefed), there is a possibility it was called for and not subsequently performed due to task saturation from the last-minute approach change.
A/THR disconnect (in fact disabling of A/THR by holding the disconnect buttons down) is required for the manoeuvre as briefed (i.e. at or above 100ft RA), because otherwise Alpha Floor would activate and the aircraft would climb out. In this case apparently the disabling of A/THR did not occur, but Alpha Floor was instead inhibited by the aircraft remaining below 100ft RA.
The programme interviewed my old Software Engineering Professor (Dr. Peter Mellor), and I believe it was the last interview he did as he sadly passed away before the programme aired.
Regarding the archive interview with Ray Davis regarding time discrepancy, page 16 of this document (Airbus's 1995 follow-up report):
http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/Rapport%20Airbus.pdf
provides a reasonable response. In addition, I should point out that Capt. Davis was an excellent and thorough investigator and this should not be considered a mark against him, he was simply inexperienced with digital recorders, having retired before their introduction.
A/THR disconnect (in fact disabling of A/THR by holding the disconnect buttons down) is required for the manoeuvre as briefed (i.e. at or above 100ft RA), because otherwise Alpha Floor would activate and the aircraft would climb out. In this case apparently the disabling of A/THR did not occur, but Alpha Floor was instead inhibited by the aircraft remaining below 100ft RA.
The programme interviewed my old Software Engineering Professor (Dr. Peter Mellor), and I believe it was the last interview he did as he sadly passed away before the programme aired.
Regarding the archive interview with Ray Davis regarding time discrepancy, page 16 of this document (Airbus's 1995 follow-up report):
http://www.crashdehabsheim.net/Rapport%20Airbus.pdf
provides a reasonable response. In addition, I should point out that Capt. Davis was an excellent and thorough investigator and this should not be considered a mark against him, he was simply inexperienced with digital recorders, having retired before their introduction.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 28th Jan 2014 at 13:51.
Thread Starter
Quote from RAT 5:
"From those in the know was the TV program accurate? [...]
"Regarding the choice & change of RWY, it stated that the only data given by AF was from the tarmac RW02, but on arrival they saw the crowd aligned along RW34 and so deviated at the last moment causing them to be high and hence at idle thrust."
I haven't seen the documentary, but that argument doesn't make much sense to me.
Approaching from the south, the direct distance to the threshold of Rwy 02 would have been several hundred metres LESS than to the thresholds of the grass strips 34L and 34R, which are several hundred metres further north.
According to the CVR, the first pilot positively to identify the airfield was the PF (captain) at about 1244:00, just as the PNF was busy initiating his first R/T call to Habsheim. At 1244:01, the PF announced (in French): "There's the field. It's there... you have it, eh?"
That was 98 seconds before first impact. The published DFDR print-out starts 4 seconds later, at 1244:05, with a time-frame notated as TGEN 240 seconds. (The last uncorrupted time frame is TGEN 334 seconds, and is considered to be the point of first impact with the trees on the north boundary of the airfield, defined as "t". So TGEN 240 is t -94 seconds.)
Habsheim ATC did not suggest that they fly along Rwy 34, and it seems doubtful that the crowd line along it would have been visible at this point.
At t -94, IAS and GS were 202 kt, passing height just over 1000 ft above the airfield elevation, and position about 3.5 nm SSE of the Rwy 02 threshold on a HDG of 336 (probably magnetic, but variation was only 2W). Had they decided at that point to position for Rwy 02, a rapid swerve to the left would have been necessary, shortly followed by a right turn to line up. That would have only increased the track distance-to-run to about 4 nm, a negligible difference from going direct to the thresholds of the grass strips.
In either straight-in scenario, there simply was not enough distance to get the height and speed off in accordance with the game plan. They needed an orbit or, preferably, a close circuit of the airfield while they slowed down and configured for the flypast.
In the event, they continued more or less straight towards the airfield, perhaps assessing the situation. There were no significant heading changes until t -50, with a 5-degree left turn; and t -25, when the a/c started a gentle right turn of about 15 deg on to its final heading of about 345 for the flypast of Rwy 34.
My interpretation of the DFDR suggests that the a/c was still descending as it passed over the threshold of Rwy 02. At t -13 it levelled off, at 60 ft baro on the QFE, just before the threshold of the shorter grass strip 34R. IAS was 132 kt - still more than 15 kt above the planned display speed. Hence the maintenance of idle thrust.
"From those in the know was the TV program accurate? [...]
"Regarding the choice & change of RWY, it stated that the only data given by AF was from the tarmac RW02, but on arrival they saw the crowd aligned along RW34 and so deviated at the last moment causing them to be high and hence at idle thrust."
I haven't seen the documentary, but that argument doesn't make much sense to me.
Approaching from the south, the direct distance to the threshold of Rwy 02 would have been several hundred metres LESS than to the thresholds of the grass strips 34L and 34R, which are several hundred metres further north.
According to the CVR, the first pilot positively to identify the airfield was the PF (captain) at about 1244:00, just as the PNF was busy initiating his first R/T call to Habsheim. At 1244:01, the PF announced (in French): "There's the field. It's there... you have it, eh?"
That was 98 seconds before first impact. The published DFDR print-out starts 4 seconds later, at 1244:05, with a time-frame notated as TGEN 240 seconds. (The last uncorrupted time frame is TGEN 334 seconds, and is considered to be the point of first impact with the trees on the north boundary of the airfield, defined as "t". So TGEN 240 is t -94 seconds.)
Habsheim ATC did not suggest that they fly along Rwy 34, and it seems doubtful that the crowd line along it would have been visible at this point.
At t -94, IAS and GS were 202 kt, passing height just over 1000 ft above the airfield elevation, and position about 3.5 nm SSE of the Rwy 02 threshold on a HDG of 336 (probably magnetic, but variation was only 2W). Had they decided at that point to position for Rwy 02, a rapid swerve to the left would have been necessary, shortly followed by a right turn to line up. That would have only increased the track distance-to-run to about 4 nm, a negligible difference from going direct to the thresholds of the grass strips.
In either straight-in scenario, there simply was not enough distance to get the height and speed off in accordance with the game plan. They needed an orbit or, preferably, a close circuit of the airfield while they slowed down and configured for the flypast.
In the event, they continued more or less straight towards the airfield, perhaps assessing the situation. There were no significant heading changes until t -50, with a 5-degree left turn; and t -25, when the a/c started a gentle right turn of about 15 deg on to its final heading of about 345 for the flypast of Rwy 34.
My interpretation of the DFDR suggests that the a/c was still descending as it passed over the threshold of Rwy 02. At t -13 it levelled off, at 60 ft baro on the QFE, just before the threshold of the shorter grass strip 34R. IAS was 132 kt - still more than 15 kt above the planned display speed. Hence the maintenance of idle thrust.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had they decided at that point to position for Rwy 02, a rapid swerve to the left would have been necessary, shortly followed by a right turn to line up. That would have only increased the track distance-to-run to about 4 nm, a negligible difference from going direct to the thresholds of the grass strips.
There is no dispute that the original AF briefing assumed (as did Capt. Asseline) 02 would be the runway they would be using. As to precisely what time they realised that it was in fact 34, there is no clear evidence.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 28th Jan 2014 at 17:04.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DW
In France (as in many other countries) you (pilot .. driver .. company .. employer .. etc ..) can be tried on charges of "responsibility to have killed or injured people without premeditation and intent to kill or injure"
It is a charge quite normal when victims are the result of an accident or an event involving injury death of people
The choice of the appropriate court of justice (correctionelle or assises) will be primarily on the fact of presence or abscence of premeditation and intent
The difference between "assises" (jury) or "correctionelle" (no jury) is the penalty
This judgment is required (always) to determine who will be compensated and by who !
Speaking for myself, I have grave reservations with the practice of treating every aviation accident as a criminal case regardless of circumstance, as seems to be the norm on the continent (and has happened here with similarly uncomfortable results).
It is a charge quite normal when victims are the result of an accident or an event involving injury death of people
The choice of the appropriate court of justice (correctionelle or assises) will be primarily on the fact of presence or abscence of premeditation and intent
The difference between "assises" (jury) or "correctionelle" (no jury) is the penalty
This judgment is required (always) to determine who will be compensated and by who !
Thanks, Chris.
Way I see it as well, with more to add.
Fer chrissakes, if you are trying to impress the folks watching, least you could do was to have made a few practice runs ahead of time. Sheesh. And then there's "pride".
Abandoning the planned power and altitude parameters by improvising also disturbs me deeply.
Despite practice, there's always a way to screw up. Witness the Thuderbird crash at Mountain Home ten years ago. Those folks have one or two practice missions before the main show. And then the nugget uses a bad altimeter setting and doesn't realize that it looks different than practice! Says on radio, "don't think I'm gonna make it". No kidding, dude.
As far as the law goes, in the U.S., any of the slf folks could file a civil lawsuit re: negligence. No criminal actions possible.
Way I see it as well, with more to add.
Fer chrissakes, if you are trying to impress the folks watching, least you could do was to have made a few practice runs ahead of time. Sheesh. And then there's "pride".
Abandoning the planned power and altitude parameters by improvising also disturbs me deeply.
Despite practice, there's always a way to screw up. Witness the Thuderbird crash at Mountain Home ten years ago. Those folks have one or two practice missions before the main show. And then the nugget uses a bad altimeter setting and doesn't realize that it looks different than practice! Says on radio, "don't think I'm gonna make it". No kidding, dude.
As far as the law goes, in the U.S., any of the slf folks could file a civil lawsuit re: negligence. No criminal actions possible.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the airfield layout, it's unlikely they'd have felt they needed to. Based on the track as indicated on page 19/37 of the 1995 report and the location of the control tower at Habsheim, it would have appeared to the controllers that the A320 was already more-or-less lined up with the strip.
@gums : Legal matters regarding aviation accidents in the UK usually remain in the civil arena, though there has been the odd exception - one of which had a particularly tragic ending. That incident also demonstrated why regulators tend to make poor incident investigators.
@gums : Legal matters regarding aviation accidents in the UK usually remain in the civil arena, though there has been the odd exception - one of which had a particularly tragic ending. That incident also demonstrated why regulators tend to make poor incident investigators.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 29th Jan 2014 at 01:43.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RAT 5
But back to the question: was the program accurate?
On the other hand, all the interviews are of interest.
Originally Posted by Dozy
Regarding the archive interview with Ray Davis regarding time discrepancy, page 16 of this document (Airbus's 1995 follow-up report) provides a reasonable response. In addition, I should point out that Capt. Davis was an excellent and thorough investigator and this should not be considered a mark against him, he was simply inexperienced with digital recorders, having retired before their introduction.
- What make you state it's 95 ... ?
- You don't need experience with digital recorders to read a listing.
- And what make you state he did not have experience with DFDR ?
- BTW when did he retire from the AAIB ?
If you use the report search facility on the BEA's website, you'll note that even today the BEA do not routinely publish a report in a language other than French unless one of the major parties involved comes from - or unless the accident itself occurred - outside of France. No "hiding" there.
Annexe VII covers the period directly concerning the accident only - it was, and in many cases still is, standard practice for most agencies to do this. Any data from other phases of the flight is quoted in short form during the narrative section of the report - again, nothing "hidden" and nothing untoward.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Habsheim was 25 years ago but still some of the lessons are there to be learned by newbies (as well as by one 86 year old !)
As a trainee at Hamble in 1949 we heard only a limited amount of the information about some of the many more frequent accidents which occurred. ( Someone had taken off in a Tudor with some of the external controls locked... But was able to land... Because he was brilliant... or exceptionally lucky ?)
The York was my first large aircraft, and it was based on the Lanchester bomber but with a different fuselage. Of the 259 built there were recorded 87 " hull losses" in the twenty years of service. In too many cases, if the pilot(s) were killed, the accident could be attributed to PILOT ERROR, without really trying to find what were the factors which contributed. An early study by David Beaty was called "The Human Factors in Aircraft Accidents".
The technology, radio communication and navigation aids together with their reliability and redundancies are now built in to an aircraft at relatively small cost in terms of weight.
A round trip from Stansted- Keflavik- Gander- N/S -Bermuda- Kingston- 2 N/S- Bermuda-Gander -N/S -Stansted took 52 hours flying, using about 10400 gallons of 100 octane petrol to carry 36 troops, each way. (Capt, F/O, N/O, R/O, G/E and Sss). Astro and weather ships for fixes, no LORAN, or ILS. ( We had SBA !)
Today might be different !
As a trainee at Hamble in 1949 we heard only a limited amount of the information about some of the many more frequent accidents which occurred. ( Someone had taken off in a Tudor with some of the external controls locked... But was able to land... Because he was brilliant... or exceptionally lucky ?)
The York was my first large aircraft, and it was based on the Lanchester bomber but with a different fuselage. Of the 259 built there were recorded 87 " hull losses" in the twenty years of service. In too many cases, if the pilot(s) were killed, the accident could be attributed to PILOT ERROR, without really trying to find what were the factors which contributed. An early study by David Beaty was called "The Human Factors in Aircraft Accidents".
The technology, radio communication and navigation aids together with their reliability and redundancies are now built in to an aircraft at relatively small cost in terms of weight.
A round trip from Stansted- Keflavik- Gander- N/S -Bermuda- Kingston- 2 N/S- Bermuda-Gander -N/S -Stansted took 52 hours flying, using about 10400 gallons of 100 octane petrol to carry 36 troops, each way. (Capt, F/O, N/O, R/O, G/E and Sss). Astro and weather ships for fixes, no LORAN, or ILS. ( We had SBA !)
Today might be different !
Last edited by Linktrained; 30th Jan 2014 at 01:27.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Linktrained
In too many cases, if the pilot(s) were killed, theaccident could be attributed to PILOT ERROR, without really trying to find what were the factors which contributed. An early study by David Beaty was called "The Human Factors in Aircraft Accidents".
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dortmund
Age: 54
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CONF iture
If no hiding why the BEA did not put a link for the English translation of the accident Final Report that Airbus is quoting ?
More seriously: I find it also frustrating to know that an English translation of the report was made, but was never published on the web. But I wouldn't call that malice, just laziness. The BEA seem to underestimate the continued worldwide interest in this particular report.
Tell me more about Annexe VII ...
That should be easy to verify with a printed copy of the Journal Officiel, volume 1990. (A brief search across libraries in Germany, for example, already seems to indicate seven such copies.) Did anyone ever bother?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Dozy: Page 23 in the report has a list of annexes, including "7. Corrélation DFDR-CVR", which never actually appears anywhere in the PDF. That is indeed a bit strange, but looks like an honest mistake to me. For some reason, the "Rapport final (additif)" (starting at page 55) consists of odd-numbered pages only, with blank pages in between. So annexe 7 may just have been on one of those even-numbered pages.
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1988/f-kc...f-kc880626.pdf
Annexe VII starts, clearly headed, on page 36.
Possibly there's an earlier version doing the rounds where some hapless intern loaded the scanning hopper incorrectly?
Who? I love all this daft conspiracy talk, but spit it out - who do you think would have preferred them dead?
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 30th Jan 2014 at 15:19.