J.O.
No, I am not awfully sure of myself, one reason I don't feel comfortable in a Airbus. Some other testpilot once felt too sure of himself and his product, that should be a lesson to all of us.
No, I wouldn't want to try a low energy stunt, knowing quite well that in any aircraft you're in trouble. Aerodynamics can't be fooled.
Thanks for entiteling me to a opinion, but what exactly do you mean by "my own facts"??

So approaching the matter obliquely didn't help. I only got accused of being profesorial. Oh, well...

Your opinion: aircraft that does not lift it's nose when the pilots pulls, that does not deliver thrust when the pilot slams the throttles IS a screw up. Well sir, since I have to be blunt, this level of ignorance about aerodynamics and powerplants can not be and is not tolerated at PPL level, let alone ATPL. What do you make out of A320 with 14° ANU and slowly descending? Probably nothing ,so I'll tell you: the poor thing has almost stalled. Any further pitch-up would lead to stall, and certainly not to climb away, as engines were at idle. By overriding capt's MA's control inputs, A320's FBW alpha protection actually saved a lot of pax that day. Sadly, alpha-floor protection 'thought' that airplane was landing, as it was at 30 ft RA, so didn't intervene by automatically hitting TOGA. And no, even A320 doesn't override control inputs, while flying far from the edge of envelope. If you pull stick, it will pitch-up, if you have some AoA to spare.

As for slamming the throttles and expecting the instant power - every engine used to power the aircraft, from rotax to klimov to GE90 has spool-up time. Granted, some have it so short that it's often mispercieved as instantenious. But turbofans definitively have perceptible lag and do require some forward thinking. It's the nature of these high-powered beasts, nothing can be done about it. And forget about 'A320 weerd thrust leevers' that don't let the pilot have control. They worked as designed, expected, required - in short they gave TOGA when set to TOGA. Only not instantly, but you won't find instant power in anything, except perhaps JATO packs.

So your opinion puts about every aeroplane ever built in screwed-up category.

Still too profesorial for you? Don't worry, translation comes: you're a faker. If I believed you were pro, I'd be seriously worried about trainning and checking standards at your airline. Still I have to admit that you've made a good point, once:

I think Clandestino answered better than I ever could.

From the faker:
I start liking that slagging match … you are so predictable with your values and numbers. I suppose one of the beloved TRI’s in the sim and lonely drinkers on layovers. By the way, i was awaiting a answer on what "my own facts" were... But let it rest. Allthough you are right to cite me on this:
I insist on my point of view that a true airline pilot has to deal with the shortcomings of his aircraft or stop operating it. He cannot screw up and use such glitches as excuse.
That’s exactly why I am working on getting away from AB. Because to me (and please take this me for ME) there are too many unpredictabilities and open questions, not to say glitches.
As you stated: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion and that’s what this thread is about after all, isn’t it.
Merry X-mas and bye bye for now
GF

Those who uphold Airbus confine themselves to generalities with no link to specific facts. They do not bring any serious answers to pointed out realities and to commonsense questions which have been asked.

When they talk about technical points, they make mistakes and fall into discredit:

It’s absolutely wrong. The AoA protection is independent of the autothrust and remain active even with the autothrust disconnected.

We can also read on this topic insults and wrong accusations without any proof against Norbert Jacquet to try to ruin his reputation:

May we ask a question to Lemurian about this? A new book was recently published in France in which we find the whole first chapter on Norbert Jacquet. His story is mentioned on the back cover of this book : “As regards to those who decide to break the law of silence, their life is destroyed, just like this Air France pilot who became a tramp after he had revealed facts on the Airbus crashes”. Here: http://jacno.com/am3830.htm (we can also see that a documentary is coming soon).

He recently had a few articles in newspapers and his business has been evoked on several TV programs. For example, an article: http://jacno.com/am5200.htm

So, can we also talk about psychiatry or polonium for those people?

It would be a good idea to avoid personal attacks against Norbert. But it’s well known that when someone is scared by somebody’s arguments, he refuses the debate and he tries to discredit this person. Please, stop insulting Norbert Jacquet.

The shrimp said :
"It’s absolutely wrong. The AoA protection is independent of the autothrust and remain active even with the autothrust disconnected."
Sorry, mister, Your knowledge of the airbus ATHR system is in error : "If you keep the ATHR disconnect button for more than 15 seconds,the A/THR is lost for the remaindre of the flight, and consequently so is ALPHA FLOOR"
I just typed too quickly and did not want to get into technicalities, but if you insist, the AoA protection remained available -in particular Alpha Prot - and that's the reason why,with so low a total energy, the pilot was prevented from getting a further pitch-up, therefore a stall (that's for Gretchenfrage ) and kept wings level throughout the descent into the trees. My humble opinion is that any other aircraft of the time would have stalled, very probably unsymmetrically, flipped a wing and gone crashing with far more severe results .
As for books and TV programs, you now have hundreds on different levels of conspiracy for the events of Sepember 11,2001. Do I believe them ? Hell,no !

That is better. You are in progress. But you speak now about alpha floor and not alpha prot. That is different. It does not seem very clear for you.

And did Cpt Asseline press more than 15 seconds?

And what about AoA protections under 100ft?

Sure. And it's not the first time!

And now, what about alpha prot, alpho floor and alpha max?

Can you say the values of the AoA during the Habsheim flight?

Was the speed increasing or decreasing at the end of the flight?

Was the thrust higher or lower than TO thrust at this time?

If it is too technical for you, I have easier. But you wanted to speak technical.

That's fair enough.
It 's a real quality to know when apology, and not every body is able to do it.

Now, I really don't see why you jump on the answer given to your statement:
... the reply was very much valid:
... and I don't see where "His knowledge of the airbus ATHR system is in error" in what he replied ?

Recognize you are a bit hard to follow:
After pretending AOA protection was lost, you change your mind in the next post: "AoA protection remained available"

I don't feel at ease with many comments from people sticking to the "too low too slow too late" version not to mention the unavoidable associated PNF comment:
So, FCOM ignores the pretty basic stuff:
"When A/THR is active, FMGS commands the thrust according to the vertical mode logic, but uses a thrust not greater than the thrust commanded by the position of the thrust lever. For example, when the thrust levers are set at the CL (climb) detent, the A/THR system can command thrust between idle and max climb"

He has probably never read your story, but obviously you have never read his book either as you would know that Asseline shut his mouth, confident in the investigation, and it's only when he realized he was fooled he decided to write the book.

Now, would he have chosen to unite with Norbert Jacquet, early and with consistency, either he would be a tramp too (which he's not and he hasn't been eaten either ...), either together they would have had a much better chance to make them heard.

That airplane, as clever as it could be, didn't have to think or not to think to automatically switch to TOGA, as pilot had done it already even if it was only by a mere 5 sec as stipulated by official report.
And even if ALPHA FLOOR protection was available at that kind of altitude, tell me at what kind of AOA the A/THR would have triggered TOGA ?

We are on semantics here.
As seen in my previous post, i talked about the A/THR system and how its deconnection in this case meant the loss of an Aoa protection feature. Had it not been done by the pilot,the Alpha floor mode would have been triggered and the spectators at Habsheim would have had a wonderful memory to tell their grandchildren. Not a ball of fire rising from the trees, but the glorious acceleration/climb of a beautiful airplane.
Though I admire your sense of friendship in defending the indefensible (that goes to the original NJ, too, by the way...), the bottom line is that your friend acted recklessly on an aircraft -and I give you this - that no one really knew at that time, not even he.Whether there is, as you claim, foul play by all the authorities in France and in Europe is left to fora like this one to discuss, generally in vain. In my opinion, I'll go back to the original comment of the Captain I referred to :" For someone who should bear the deaths of a few people on his conscience, he is really very arrogant."

Command is not for the faint of heart. When in command of an aircraft, you are responsible for all that happens, particularly when you break the rules that you have previously set for a particular flight profile. Acceptance of said responsibility and contrition with respect to the errors made is a sign of a good commander, even when there are contributing factors which may have been outside your immediate perview at the time. Asseline has never accepted this responsibility or made any attempts to be contrite, and this makes it difficult to be sympathetic to him. His defenders are wasting their time because of this, IMHO.

You know you're quite amazing:
What about at least opening an FCOM before posting such comments ?

FCOM 1.22.30 ... ALPHA FLOOR protection is available from lift off to 100 feet RA in approach

Once again, your post shows an obvious lack of knowledge
1- on the aircraft
2- on the Habsheim case

If that: Lemurian is true, I would hide it ASAP !

Before posting next time, why not taking the time to read and to study to be able to build your OWN judgment on that controversial subject.
Looking at the number of Views on this thread, you would not be the only one.

Before I've heard of Norbert Jacquet, I had a similar judgment that you have on the Habsheim case.
Don't be afraid to read him, and if that guy suffers from mental instability, I would not mind suffering from the same instability.

And do not restrain your reading to him, there are other guys around as well. You may even like to have a look on the official report ... if you can find it !?

Lemurian and J.O. Still generalities with no link to specific facts. Wash your hands before eating. Don't put your fingers in your nose. Say hello to the lady...

Lemurian, be kind enought to answer my technical questions in my last post. And to the previous questions (about the lawsuits against Norbert Jacquet and their issues, about the false pilot licenses, etc).

Topic is "Airbus technology defects". We don't mind about Asseline. He is a real arrogant and unbearable man, he played the fool in Habsheim, but this does not change anything about what we are talking about on this topic.

What might we think about what Norbert Jacquet tells? Why are the authorities still on his track?

May we ask this question: is Airbus a banana republic aircraft?

Confiture ,
As usual, attacks are better than defense, aren't they ?
The book I have, page 12.22.68.05, paragraph 5 states in italics (verbatim translation ):
"ATTENTION :
If a disconnect button is pressed for more than 15 seconds, the A/THR system is disconnected for the remainder of the flight ; all the A/THR functions, including ALPHA FLOOR are lost. They can only be retrieved after the next FMGC power-up."
As you can see, my dear friend, maybe you could read all of the book you cite, or cite all the relevant articles. I suspect that you don't fly the 'Bus, as I do, otherwise you wouldn't have trusted NJ, but I suspect you won't change your mind.
Staying on the same point, they did not on that flight initially have the "under 100 ft" condition, because of the terrain. Read again the transcript and find out that the rad alt kept on giving varying heights.
By the way, this particular item is one of the main points that are discussed on the requal syllabus. I should know.
I advise you to get some more infos from the University of Bielefeld site, they had published some pretty pertinent remarks on that accident and they are not part of the French conspiracy . Until you come back with infos that are not from Asseline's or Jacquet's books, this discussion is moot. Might as well talk about angels' sex life.
Regards.

Great !
... but did CAPT Asseline or anyone in the flight deck at that time press more than 15 seconds one of these disconnect buttons ?
I'm not the only one to ask that question.
And I did ask that question to Zeke 10 days ago ... but still no answer !?
But you're also welcome to quote it.

Having said that, even if someone had done it, it would not have changed anything as:
1- Airplane never reached an AOA to trigger such a protection
2- Airplane was below 100 feet RA

Oh that's getting interesting here !
As you seem to have all the relevant information on the subject and on top of that it's part of your recurrent, please, or I should say PLEASE, quote for me these radar altimeter values, lets say for the last 20 seconds or so, of this flight.
Even better if you want to quote them from the official report ...

That's a bit scary ... but I still believe you can do a good job without knowing everything on the type you fly.
No, my concern is more in this attitude, this lack of openness, this way to stick to a version as "official" it could be without questioning a single minute.

And to illustrate that, I would be more than happy, honestly, if you bring a link to this information. I will obviously read it, and if it's pertinent, I'm ready to change my mind ...


I know I'm bored, but please, keep posting, you make my day every time you do.

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/9.86.html#subj2.1

This link has CVR transcript and timeline for engine N1.

Just scroll down for Habsheim. There is also some narrative from a Flight article following the transcript.

A4

Confiture,
the exact word is "I'm boring ", not "I'm bored".
Yes, you are boring, and you should research on your own. Bielefeld ,any research engine will find it for you, they specialise in both CRM and human/computer relationships. Unfortunately, they don't elaborate on conspiracies.That would do you some good.
I am going to talk about the angels' sex life with a bunch of buddies with some beer, it's a lot more fun than your blinkered obsessions.
We really have nothing in common. I like living where I live. don't need to keep looking over my shoulder for baddies to get me and I trust my country's institutions... Funny, hey ?
As you don't, our conversation will just be a slugfest, and it's boring too. Willy-waving is for kids and, personally, I'm past that stage.
Have a nice day !

Once again, I apologize : I fell in the trap made by confiture and friends : letting myself get involved in a silly argument.
I realised that other forum members would be interested in the link -the University of Bielefeld- I alluded to.
This document is very interesting because the researchers come out with a sieve to filter the facts that appear in an accident investigation. They call it the WBA, acronym for "Why-Because Analysis".
At the bottom of these 17 pages, the pruner will find more links to other doctoral research.
Here it is :
Lewis WBA

There is more but the site is well made, it's up to you to find out.

Regards to all

Thanks for the link Lemurian. That report succinctly states that the only real issue in dispute between Asseline's conclusions and those of the investigators is the validity of the engine performance. The facts of the case show that they did perform as expected (in fact better than the certification requirements). Instead of attacking Airbus, those who would demand better engine performance in such situations should be asking the certifying authorities (DGAC / FAA) to amend the performance requirements. The same applies to Jorbert's attacks on the flight envelope protections and how they affected the accident. Given that their only evidence to make such a demand is an accident which resulted from a significantly botched attempt at a low fly-past, we all know the response that would come from the authorities. Time to move on folks.

Nothing like a beer to get back on track ...
Welcome back Lemurian, and thank you for the link.

I have to go, but it's printed, I will read that on my way, for sure I will !

And don't worry, you're not the only one not to answer the questions:

Zeke thought it was nicer sending a private message, but my question was to anyone interested in the thread, so I believe the answer has to be public as well:

So I concede there are people much more qualified than me on the Airbus systems, and also on the report.
But, regarding the airplane, you still have to produce an factual reply to that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke:
CLB can command the same N1 as MCT.
If it takes the MCT N1/EPR to accelerate and/or climb whilst in CLB, autothrust can command it. Pretty basic stuff

And originally Answered by myself:
So, FCOM ignores the pretty basic stuff:
"When A/THR is active, FMGS commands the thrust according to the vertical mode logic, but uses a thrust not greater than the thrust commanded by the position of the thrust lever. For example, when the thrust levers are set at the CL (climb) detent, the A/THR system can command thrust between idle and max climb"



And regarding the report, if you just consult the link posted by A4, you may notice that, according to official report, pilot disconnects A/THR at second 26 and tape ends at second 41.
... Could it be the 15 seconds you're talking about !?

... The silent crowd will appreciate.

Time to ask questions folks.

Thank you Lemurian, besides defusing myths surrounding Habsheim and Warsaw accidents, the link provided gives good clue why we do accident analysys at all. Basing its conclusion on facts and logical deduction, it sure supports BEA's point of view that airplane worked as expected and fault lies with seriously flawed execution of flypast.

But let me introduce radically different point of view, put forward in report by Christian Roger, advisor in the defence of capt. Michel Asseline, flight capt. Air France (ret.), former leader of Patrouille de France. president of SNPL Air France 1986-1990. According to it, DFDR and CVR recordings used in accident analysys and legal proceedings were completely forged and didn't come from accident aircraft. Videos taken on the day of accident were all forged too. DGAC, Airbus, BEA, French goverment and French judicial system conspired together to hide the real cause of the accident. With real black boxes gone for good, the only reliable pieces of information, upon which he based his conlusions, were: capt. Aseline's words as he left burning aircraft "the engines didn't pick up correctly" and fact that slash marks on trees were asymetrical. Even the trees were misteriously offed three days later by the by conspirators but it was too late, because capt. Roger has already seen enough broken tree tops and made up his mind regarding the probable cause. Determining that there was asymetrical spooling up of the engines, probably caused by faulty FADEC electronics, was his tour de force.

Chalk one up for paranoia and delusion. With friends like these, capt. Asseline was not quite in the need of enemies. Back to my fable, moral #2.

And the question time it is. You have the guy that claims that:

- the minimum flying speed of A320 is fixed by the builders as "Alpha max". Higher useable speeds may be mentioned, but they can only be recommendations.

-there cannot be traces of fire extinguishing products on the recorders boxes without traces of fire itself

-only one single speed can correspond to a particular angle of incidence in aviation (page 30 - guy is totally ignorant of the existence of ground effect)

-they never said why the radar was not accurate enough (for a plane flying below 50ft, that is)

...and many others. So how is it possible that this guy retires after distinguished career in mil and civ aviation and no one ever notices that something is wrong with him? Since he's heavilly copy/pasting from Roger's report and pushing Roger's agenda as if it were his own, I hereby pronounce CONFiture the most suitable person to answer this question.

Actually the number of 'bugs' was practically non-existent by the time flight testing started - as a result of the multiple redundancy that Airbus had decided on from the get-go. The controversy that came later (after the Indian and Air Inter accidents - as well as the A330 crash which killed Nick Warner, which you've already brought up) was purely based on a less than ideal part of the human-computer interface. It was decided that dual function dials (with push-pull selecting between angle of descent and descent rate) was not a good interface design, allowing pilots to become confused as to what they had programmed. As a result the whole interface was overhauled retroactively. My Software Engineering professor was very clear on that, as he was hired as an advisor on software and interface design to Airbus during that time. Airbus was not the only manufacturer to suffer interface issues, as the Cali B757 accident proved many years after the aircraft went into service.

The French have a reputation for working to avoid blame being attached to a French institution or aircraft. But it is not the French alone who do this. Remember how hard Boeing worked to try to prove that the B737 rudder ECU and actuator design had no impact on the Colorado Springs and Pittsburgh incidents, and how hard they worked to divert responsibility to the pilots involved. Remember how hard the Dutch investigators worked to absolve Captain Jacob van Zanten of blame during the Tenerife investigation. This is unhelpful, but normal, not evidence of conspiracy.

Yes, there is a sense of satisfaction when the cause is discovered, and yes there is no doubt a sense of a job well done when bad practices have been brought to light. But in this case Captain Michel Asseline pushed the envelope when it was imprudent to do so, and tragedy resulted. To claim otherwise is a waste of time when there are many more current realities in aviation that require scrutiny.

Again you are showing to lack of knowledge on Airbus systems.

FCOM 2.02.14 P1 FLEX TAKEOFF REQUIREMENTS, the FLEX EPR (V2500) or N1 (CFM) cannot be lower than max climb EPR (V2500) or N1 (CFM) at the same flight conditions.

I.e. on normal flex takeoff you may command a takeoff EPR (V2500) or N1 (CFM) equivalent to max climb EPR (V2500) or N1 (CFM.

Max climb EPR (V2500) or N1 (CFM) are computed values, they change with flight conditions.

In summary, going from MCT to CL or CL to MCT does not _always_ change EPR (V2500) or N1 (CFM). You will only _always_ get a reduction when going TOGA to CL.

Lemurian, A4, J.O. and Zeke only speak about the Habsheim crash. They use technical values and analysis that come from the french official report.

This can not be used because (all this is in the links of the biginning of this topic):

- Norbert Jacquet asserted in the press and in his book that the official report was a forgery and that false documents have been built up by investigators to exonerate the plane,

- he has been sued in defamation twice, because he asserted all this (one of the trial was commited by Minister Mermaz),

- he won these two trials by maintaining his accusations against the authorities and the Minister.

That means that Norbert Jacquet finally judicially proved that the official report was based on falsifications.

This was to recall.

It has also been proved that false airline pilot licenses were given to Michel Asseline, the pilot in Habsheim.

Nope. He did not.
The courts upheld his right to free expression of his opinions, regardless of their (ir)rationality. Alleged falsifications were not on trial, therefore no verdict upon them was given.
I'm still waiting for that translation of yours, my dear decapod crustacean, but if it's even waguely based on Roger's report, you need not bother.
Remember, if you're insisting that everything regarding the investigation wass false, then also you have nothing to base your allegation of 'Airbus technollogy defects' on. No CVR, no FDR and only thing you accept to be truthful is the statement of the fellow, whose showing off has killed three people, two of them children. Have you ever heard of denial?

It seems our crustacean friend has been swimming a little deeper than he should. It's affecting his cognition. There is a huge difference between a court ruling which says that one is entitled to free speech (no matter how deluded said free speech is), and a ruling which strikes down the findings of an official investigation. I can gaurantee that had such a ruling been made, the repercussions would have been loud and far reaching. Instead, all we have is the repeated ravings of someone who is too naive to admit their own weaknesses in not being able to understand a very safe and logical aircraft design.

You insist and speak only about Habsheim. I give answer about Habsheim.

The French law on defamation is one of most severe in the world. If you do not prove what you said, you are convicted.

Norbert Jacquet won the two trials by maintaining his accusations against the authorities and the Minister. He judicially proved that the official report was a forgery to exonerate the plane.

To recall: A few documents are getting translated on the Airbus defects that caused crashes, pointed out by Norbert Jacquet, and will be presented on this forum later on. Work in progress.

Ask French journalists by email: http://jacno.com/za-an-an72.htm (some adresses are not valid any more).

At this juncture, ask them why they did not say anything during twenty years about the Mitterrand’s hidden daughter!

the shrimp,

Over 35000 hours a day are flown globally in 320 series aircraft, with close to 3000 been built.

We have not seen a single repeat of a Habsheim style incident since Habsheim. This is despite thousands of single engine and all engine go around having been done since Habsheim from a low level by pilots of various training backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, educational backgrounds, and competence levels, we still do not have a repeat of this incident (or even similar).

If a cover up exists of a serious airbus technology defect ... why do we not see a string of Habsheim style crashes ?

The fact is since Habsheim, the 320 has been a far safer platform than the 737. Despite this crackpots still come out from the woodwork saying that technology defects have been covered up.

Where/what exaclty is this smoking gun that has been covered up ?

:eek: :confused:

Zeke,

You confine yourself to generalities with no link to specific facts. You do not bring any serious answers to pointed out realities and to commonsense questions which have been asked.

The 320 have flown for 18 years? OK, Zeke.

During more than 50 years, asbestos was considered an ideal building material. It was an excellent fire retardant, had high electrical resistivity and was inexpensive and easy to use.

And now ? Worldwide, 60 countries have banned the use of asbestos, in whole or in part.

It was not a Christmas tale.

Asbestos and Mitterand's daughter !
Next, we'll hear about the Da Vinci code, Kennedy's murder and Elvis Presley's new ranch...and green ETs hiding in the Nevada desert:E
Get a life ...

While the A320 has been shown to be a safe platform, why drag the 737 into the argument and say that it is less safe when the actual data show otherwise?

Here are the hull loss rates per million departures for the respective airplanes:

737-100/200: 1.41

737-300/400/500: 0.38

737-600/700/800: 0.00

A319/320/321: 0.57

The 737 models that are contemporary with the A320 have actually shown a better accident rate. While the 737-100/200 shows a rate that is higher than the rest of these small twin jets, its rate is consistent with other airplanes of its generation such as:

727: 1.11

747-100/200/300/SP: 2.28

A300: 1.68

Souce: http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

The fact is that the A320 and fly-by-wire airplanes in general have not had a significant effect on airplane safety either for good or for bad.

Since the 25th of June, 1988 :

• Seven (7) A320 fatal accidents have occurred, with the tragic loss of 444 lives (17 hull losses total in that time);
• Forty seven (47) B737 fatal accidents have occurred, with the tragic loss of 2938 lives (92 hull losses total in that time).

It would seem evident to my previous request that you are not able to point to the smoking gun that was covered up.

It would also seem evident that the technology that is not defective, it is very safe. Because so few fatal accidents with the 320 have occurred, many people are able to recite them in extreme detail, they all have been investigated in great detail. I cannot say the same with the 737, with 128 hull losses to date (maybe 129 awaiting confirmation from Indonesia) they become a blur.

You have been trying to establish that some form of cover up or an inaccurate finding exists in the investigation. If an inaccurate finding or cover up in the investigation occurred regarding some defect in the aircraft design, the said item that was covered up would have come to light sometime in the past 18 years.

As I have pointed out, no such event has occurred.

What airbus technology defect was covered up ?

What is your safety concern ?

Sorry OAG, nothing personal, just showing that the 737 has killed more people over the same period of time, and that whatever technology defect was said to have been covered up it has not caused another accident.

That data is out of date, I can recall more than one 737NG hull loss. One can also split 320 series models into groups as well. The 318/319/321 are at zero, and the 320-100 and 320-200 can be separated.

Just depends on how you butter your bread, I compared all models of similar types over the same time frame. If you were to compare all 737 models that were manufacturer over the past 18-19 years, it still comes out with the 320 being better. I think about 26 733/734/735/738 hull losses have occurred with 1026 lives lost.

I would disagree, the 320/330/340/777 all are statistically safer. I also note that the 747-800/787/A350 will also be fly by wire, the technology has been embraced by both manufacturers.

The data are through 2005. The 737NG hull losses rate still stands at zero. If you have other data, please provide it with a source.
Total number of 733/734/735 hull losses (manufactured over the last 18-19 years) through 2005 was 19, not 26. The 738 is not included since there have been zero of those. The total number of A318/319/320/321 hull losses through 2005 were 12. These hull losses provide respective accident rates of 0.38 and 0.57 quoted earlier. If you have other data, please provide it with a source.
The hull loss rate for the other airplanes and the 744 are:
A330: 0.00
A340: 0.92
777: 0.00
744: 0.75
Since the A340 rate is worse than the 733/734/735 and the 744 (a non-FBW airplane), while the A330 and 777 rate is the same as the 737NG, there is no satistical basis for saying that FBW is safer.
If you think that FBW is safer, that's fine, but the statistics do not back you up.
By the way, the 748 will not be FBW as its primary flight controls will be similar to the 744.

The recent Gol crash involved a 737NG, this being the first and to date only 737NG hull loss.

The three I had in mind
Southwest 737 in Dec (Maybe repaired, still 1 death involved)
Air Algérie 736 in March this year
GOL 738 in Sept this year.

340 has no deaths with a lower hull loss accident rate than the 744.

The 744 has had 3 hull loss accidents, China Airlines in 1993 in Hong Kong, Korean in 1996 at Seoul both hull losses on landing, no loss of life. Singapore in 2000 at Taipei on takeoff, 83 dead.

Only one 340 hull loss in service, the Air France landing at Toronto, no loss of life.

Two other 340 hull losses events maybe on the database you are looking at, one was during maintenance when a hydraulic pump overheated, the other on the tarmac in Colombo in a terrorist attack. Neither during operation, neither a hull loss accident.

Thanks for the 748 info, when did they go back to conventional controls on that design ? Last update I read had wind tunnel testing being done to establish the FBW control systems.

Asbestos? We know that it is true. We all know that. Do you claim the opposite?

Mitterrand's hidden daughter? We know that it is true. We all know that. Do you claim the opposite?

Who is the funny guy?

Please, Lemurian...

So, please, bring up some figures ... and don't forget:
- Bâle-Mulhouse is not that far from 1000 feet ASL
- The guy leveled off at 1000 feet AGL

To give you a chance, you may even consider the guy leveled off higher, even if that flight didn't last 5 minutes time, and ended at the same altitude it started.

... So I won't insult you by specifying the reference you should be looking for ...


BTW, you've been very quiet on that other early assumption ?

Does anyone know what the orginal plan for the flypast was?. If he was planning to do a "high alpha" pass like the Airbus display pilots do at airshows he would, as they do, have disabled alpha-floor protection by holding the pb's in for 15 seconds which disconnects all the autothrust functions including alpha-floor for the remainder of the flight.

It's a bit ironic that Airbus's airshow party piece is only possible with one of the main protections locked out.

Never flown a 320-100, I did not profess to have that data. I just said that it is not always the case, such as with a high derate (up to 40% with the current EEC) or high flex takeoff (up to flex 70). I have presented the 320 FCOM reference to back myself up.

Two questions for you :

What airbus technology defect was covered up ?

What is your safety concern ?

I sent a PM to the person concerned.

The whole debate got childish, it keeps going in circles, your posts are a testament to that. No one is able to show that a serious or safety defect existed at the time, name the serious or safety defect that was covered supposed to have been covered up, and then state how this serious or safety defect has not resulted in a string of subsequent accidents in the past 18-20 years which required a cover up.

If a serious or safety defect exists I would be the first person wanting it to get fixed, I want to know what it is, no one is able to put a finger on it.

The Air France requirement at the time was not lower than 300' when above a runway which is suitable for landing. The two pilots were both Air France training captains, it was an assumption that they were aware of the Air France policy at the time.

Please, folks, can we keep the discussion on a level attitude ?

Having inherited this thread from elsewhere we will extend some tolerance ... I really don't like to go in and delete sections of posts which wander too far off the beaten track but, if need be, I will ...

Play the ball, not the man.

Conspiracist theorising will be tolerated to a degree .. but not indefinitely.