running with scissors wrote:

Stefan wrote in message ...
nobody wrote:

No, this was a demo of its computer systems capabilities, they woudln't have
shut it down.

No. The pilot wanted to display his new toy low and slow to the public.
To achieve this, he ignored even the most basic safety rules and basic
airmanship.

The fact that there is still so much myth with this case was caused by
the French authorities, who handled the accident as a state affair,
because it concerned Airbus. France and Airbus at that time ... a story
for itself. With this behaviour they prepared the ground for many rumors
and deep misbelief in the eventual results of the investigation.

Secondly, the big red button isn't to ...

Obviously you didn't understand me: I wasn't talking of any real button.
I just pointed out that the computer system can be oversteered by the
pilot at any time.

Stefan

stefan you are full of ****ing ****, a liar and a ****ing idiot who is
making false claims concerning an incident you clearly know **** all
about.

1. it wasnt a demo of its fly by wire capabilities. quite the ****ing
reverse it located a flaw in the FADEC.

Hadn't heard that one.

Care to elaborate ?


2. The fly-by was a management decision. was instructed by dispatch.
the pilot was chief pilot for AF.

3. the pilot didnt own the plane, why would he be showing off his new
toy ?

I think he wanted to emulate the similar tricks he'd seen performed by Airbus Industrie
pilots.


4. the flyby was approved by the aviation authority and not to my
knowledge broke any regulations of airshow display procedures current
for the time.

5. how did he ignore basic safety laws and airmanship?

6. the incident occured due to FADEC issue.

Interested again. I thought it was the poor response of the compressor ( the subject of a
subsequent design change and mod to engines of that design in service ).


6.

7. surely ? etc

no myth, its all known and public knowledge. the FDR was switched
after the accident (finding by Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic
Evidence and Criminology)

After the trial of course !

UK Channel 4 TV ran 2 documentaries on the subject of this accident. I recall a video of
the recorders being recovered. The ones presented at the trial actually looked different (
less beaten-up ) ! There was a 'mystery missing 4 seconds' in the data after the DGAC had
made of with the 'black boxes'. The BEA had to get a warrant to recover them. That's like
the FAA running off with the flight recorders ( opening them up and tinkering too ) and
refusing to hand them over to the NTSB until ordered.


Graham