JL Grasso wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 18:03:00 +0000, Pooh Bear
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:40:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:08:49 +0000, Pooh Bear
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:
JL Grasso wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"

The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a
fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo
pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet.

The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up
with the low slow fly by all on his own.

Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the
low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a
prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent
below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to
exit the fly-by.

The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above
'explanation'.

Cite?

Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ?

Are you sure that you're not thinking of Norbert Jaquet? I thought that
Mazieres (the FO) flew for AF for some time after the accident. I could be
wrong, however.

If it was common knowledge, a cite should be a simple matter. Unless you
mean 'common knowledge' in the Tarverian sense.

I stand corrected, I got the 2 confused. It's been a long time since it happened. The
F.O. stayed 'shtumb' ( is that how you spell it ) and kept out of the way of the flak.

Is that what he told you?

Do you not think it strange that someone who criticised the official findings and
supported the captain being declared mentally insane is a very odd way to go about an
accident investigation ?

Air France was in charge of the investigation, eh?

Don't be silly. AF may have had it's reputation to protect but that was damaged already.
There were larger potential losers here.

Air France was the party who declared him "mentally unstable". You
pondered that this was a strange way to run an investigation. I am simply
stating that Air France was not in charge of the investigation. Do you
still assert otherwise?

Some 'body' had the flight recorders for 10 days directly after the crash who wasn't
entitled to be in custody of them according to French law. During that time they were
tinkered with. They shouldn't have been.

They were apparently in the possession of the DGAC, true. Your assertion
that they were "tinkered with" is apparently based on IPSC's claims. The
same "institute" putting forth the laughable notion that the stripes on
the boxes are oriented differently. This seems to imply that someone
apprently fabricated a recorder from scratch in some outlandish scheme to
save AI's reputation (as any recorder of the same model/part number should
bear the same outer markings).

Besides, if you ran around saying "Captain Smith had the right-of-way",
I'd think you were mentally unstable too. And there is a significant
difference between unstable and insane.

So, you think that speaking out in defence of his colleauge was sufficient reason to
withdraw his flying license ?

I haven't seen AF's case against the man, and what you are implying is
that they were definitely related. What do you base this on?

However, it would seem odd that these same "dark hats" would allow the FO
to continue to fly for AF for years afterwards. Odd, unless you understand
the CVR transcript.

Something about the whole investigation truly stinks. Also, the French aren't exactly
saints when it comes to bending the rules when it suits their purposes.

Well, that sounds like iron-clad evidence to me.

I don't argue that the crew got the a/c into a very odd flight regime. In part, it was poor
briefing that they received.

Oh, so the DFDR tampering was intended to cover for the DFO at Air France?
Which is it again?

Are the boundaries between the parties involved somewhat fuzzy to you?
Speaking to motive, of course.

There were also known and documented defects with various A320 systems at that time -
including throttle response and height indication. Capt Assiline asserts that the a/c
showed 100 ft altitude when it was actually flying much lower.

Anyone who would rely on a pressure altimeter to operate a low, slow
aircraft 100 feet from the ground when a radar altimiter was fucntioning
(and apparently giving accurate aural information) and available is not
making a prudent decision. The pressure altimiter (servo, ADC or
otherwise) is only required to be accurate to app +/- 30 feet at sea level
to begin with (and the DFDR was only required to show pressure altitude
resolution to +/- 100 ft, but may have been more on this unit). A radar
altimiter is accurate (depending on a given antenna/plane configuration)
to within 5 feet (and quite likely less) between wheel height and terrain.

Read the CVR transcript again and tell me how the Captain could possibly
be surprised later when told/shown he was below 100 feet during the
fly-over.

In short, they were flying an a/c of questionable airworthiness. That *couldn't* be allowed
to come out in the investigation, so it was *fixed*.

You have no idea what you're talking about. If you have a problem with how
you perceive airworthiness to be determined by the DGAC, you should take
it up with them. The only things questionable here are your understanding
of the event, of the aircraft, and your sources of information.

Not surprising for Puke Bear.