Greg Farris wrote:
In article om,
says...
The most famous of all, the Airbus "low pass" at the French air show,
when the FADEC throttles refused to power up (thinking the plane was
landing) and the plane settled into the trees.

It is anything but demonstrated that the aircraft systems did anything
unexpected in this accident. The pilot tried to make this claim at the
outset, but ended up being saddled with responsibility for his show-off
manoeuver. The official result of the investigation is that it was the
pilot's fault, and the aircraft has been exonerated of any failure.

LOL. If you believe official investigations all the time, then I've
got a bridge for you. Of course the pilot was blamed. But they
changed the software afterwards, and Airbus officials had this to say:
"Until the crash, there was a genuine psychology around Airbus that it
had designed a crash-proof airplane because of the hard protections.
The repercussions from that accident continue to reverberate,"

Not a bug per se, but certainly poor software planning and it resulted in
changes in fly by wire thinking.

Much more to change thinking on matters of pilot training. the claim of "poor
software planning" is unsubstantiated.

Hardly wry grin. The pilot did what he was told to do, but had two
hits against him. First, he was told to fly by at 100'. He did so,
not knowing that Airbus had a bug in the Atlimeter software, and he was
really at 30'. This screwed him, since he also didn't know that
Airbus had issued an bulletin the month before the crash, stating that
the engines sometimes didn't respond to throttles at low altitudes.
The pilots had not gotten the notice yet. The engine software was
modified after the crash.

Kev