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.