Link doesn't work for me - this one does:

PopularMechanics

That Popular Mechanics account was very well written, it seems to me. Are there any faults or errors in it?

Yes. It was based on incomplete data.

@vapilot2004
 

'Incomplete Data'

Really? What was missed? Thousands of posts later, this struck me as a compelling and highly believable account....

In the interim while w await the final report with a full analysis of the data by qualified experts, any number of "what-if" theories can be offered by those who watch from the sidelines (PPRune etc.)

A good writer can link selective facts together in a cohesive fashion to promote any number of theories. Apparently you found one in your referenced report. However there are numerous more theories being discussed on PPRune in these threads and any other good writer need only to cherry pick what sounds plausible into a competing conclusion with your source.

The more profesional don't rush to judgement of promoting a theory until all the facts have been vetted among the experts.

Good reply-- AND...there were many facts left out, too numerous to mention.

The situation was far too complex to be fairly summed-up in one short article.
Quite a few factors that might have been in play, some that would help explain the weird actions of the PF, have been offered here. Speculation, yes, but highly-educated speculation-- er, some of it. :hmm:

Like the man said, we are waiting for the (hopefully; <cough>) FULL report.

One reason I found it very good was that it included in its timeline when airspeed instruments became functionable again, which greatly aided my SA on what was available in the cockpit. This may have been available in the thousands in previous posts (many of which I have not read), but here it was easily followed.

The article gave a succint account of the basic facts, the main point being that the aircraft was recoverable after the initial upset. Not much more needs to be said. But why 3 experienced crewmembers could not see the solution is the real question and we can only speculate on that one.

That is the value of a well researched and well constructed article or TV documentary. It is meant to communicate in the simplest terms.

However, it doesn't mean that it is correct or the only opinion on the subject.

The jury is still out on this subject since the investigating anaylsis is not yet complete.

Ya...and when the final report does come out, there will still be many who will find fault with it. The only fear I have is a highly biased final report.

Sherpa
 

I think there needs to me more of a drill down on Pierre Cedric Bonin's 2900 hours of flight experience.Does anyone know what his resume of flight experience shows? 2900 hours in what? civilian or military trained?This is important detail that has been missing from all reports.The types of aircraft he previously logged times in seems very relevant at this point.2900 hours in Fouga's and Mirages or Cessna's?

Bonin experience from 3rd interim report, anyone have more details?
 

 Private Pilot’s License issued in 2000
 ATPL theory in 2000
 Professional pilot’s license issued in 2001
 Multi-engine instrument type rating issued in 2001
 Glider pilot’s license issued in 2001
 Following his selection by Air France, pilot training course at the Amaury de la Grange
piloting school in Merville from October 2003
 A320 type rating issued in 2004 (within Air France). End of line training and pilot in
command for first time in September 2004
 ATPL License issued on 3 August 2007
 Additional A340 type rating issued in February 2008 (with Air France). End of LOFT and
pilot in command for first time in June 2008
 Additional A330 type rating and LOFT in December 2008

This is Bonin infos from the first interim report and this is a difference with the one of the third interim report
First interim report english

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...90601e1.en.pdf

Bonin infos:

Male, aged 32
 Professional pilot’s FCL license (CPL) issued on 23 April 2001
 Multi-engine instrument type rating (IR ME) issued on 16 October 2001
 ATPL theory obtained in September 2000
 Airbus A340 type rating issued on 26 February 2008
 Line oriented flight training completed 9 June 2008
 Airbus A330 type rating issued on 1st
December 2008
 Line oriented flight training completed 22 December 2008
 Other type ratings: Airbus A320 issued on 7 September 2004
 Medical certificate (class 1) issued on 24 October 2008, valid until 31 October
2009 with compulsory wearing of corrective lenses
 Flying hours:
 total: 2,936
 on type: 807(9)
 in the previous six months: 368 hours, 16 landings, 18 take-offs
 in the previous three months: 191 hours, 7 landings, 8 take-offs
 in the previous thirty days: 61 hours, 1 landing, 2 take-offs
This pilot had performed five rotations in the South America sector since
arriving in the A330/A340 division in 2008, including one to Rio de Janeiro.
His oceanic route qualification was valid until 31 May 2010.
2008/2009 ECP instruction season:
 E33 training on 2 February 2009
 C34 base check on 3 February 2009
 4S ground training on 15 January 2009
The validity of the E34, C33, CEL34, CEL33, S1 training, checks and ground
training was covered by the dates he obtained the Airbus A330 and A340 type
rating qualifications as well as by the date of the end of the line oriented flight
training.
These training courses and checks were programmed before the following
dates:
 E34 training: 31 August 2009
 C33 base check: 31 August 2009
 CEL34 line check: 31 December 2009
 CEL 33 line check: 31 December 2010
 S1 ground training: 31 March 2010

Note and polemic
Where is
 ATPL License issued on 3 August 2007
This info appear only in the third report (after the discovery of black boxes and so BEA knowing who was piloting at event time)

Is there any information on how many hours a pilot made autopilot/manual flying?

Or some qualified estimate?

Under what licence was Bonin able to be “ . . . pilot in
command for first time in September 2004”, when his ATPL License was not issued until 3 August 2007?

Is this sequence and timing usual?

(Just trying to understand – no agenda.)

A little lost in translation I suspect. Most UK airlines qualify their co-pilots at the outset as 'P1' which means in essence that they are allowed to operate as 'P1/US' (not 'PIC'), and is a licensing matter. Qualification to be a 'cruise captain' is normally delegated to an internal airline progression/training, with, of course, regulatory oversight.

I was wondering the same thing.
How much flying experience did he have? Or is this the new breed of airline pilot?
Looking at the time-line, I don't see much opportunity for this pilot to have had any "real" hands-on/decision making/PIC time in his career.
Yes, qualifications, but where's the exposure to normal hand flying in crappy conditions as a low time pilot? Where's the flogging around in a twin at night for a few hundred hours, single-pilot IFR gaining experience?

This is a worrying trend to me.

Better get used to it. That's all there's going to be now and in the future. Glad I'm outta aviation.

The Popular Mechanics article that Alain in Thailand helpfully posted in post #705 is essentially a synopsis of Jean-Pierre Otelli's book "Erreurs de Pilotage 5", which includes the complete CVR transcript, annotated and commented on by Otelli. Otelli has stolen the BEA's thunder - little wonder the BEA is upset.

Rockhound "Stolen the BEA'S thunder". How so?