If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 6:42 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: Kevin, it's funny how you conveniently snipped the part of my post you couldn't defend. Not at all; your argument was so lacking in logic that I saw little reason to bother. But if you are so interested in improving yourself, here goes: "CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC." What you ignore is that the "capping" (by which you actually menat "stacking", I presume) is utterly dependent upon a number of external factors that don't necessarily impact the operations of a STOVL aircraft. You have to have tankers to support the CAS stack--tankers are a commodity that is becoming more critical these days, and less available. You have to have bases within range to support continuous operations. The heavies have less problem with this, but then again we don't have a limitless supply of heavies, and they *do* have some limits (hard to have a heavy do a Maverick run). How many F-16's or even F-15E's do you have to have running continuous operations to support a very long range CAS mission (like Afghanistan from the Gulf)? Lots if yo0u are going to maintain a continuous CAS stack, and *lots* of crews, too. Plus more tankers. And if you find yourself a bit farther away than that Gulf-to Afghanistan trasit distance, then supporting the CAS requirement becomes even more tenuous, if not impossible. OTOH, if you establish a forward landing strip to handle C-130's bringging in the beans, bullets, and bombs, you can also put a few STOVL aircraft in there, set up FARP's closer to the action, and (voila!", you just reduced your tanking requirements while also making the CAS package more responsive to the ground commander's needs. He wants some CBU-105's in the mix? The F-15E flying from Bumfart 1200 miles distant, on station with GBU's, is not going to be able to help him much, and by the time he gets a new aircraft on station the target is gone. OTOH, he gets his STOVL aircraft to hit the FARP for a couple of CBU 105's, and bingo, he's in business. That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then) AV-8B's with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway, because the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any *reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want? It was actually YOU that suggested that the USAF was trying to make nice with the USMC. No, it was not. I was being quite facetious with that query. That you found it palusible is rather telling of your grasp of this situation. Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would most definitely buy CV versions in reduced numbers, still driving up the unit costs. Secondly, I never said the USAF didn't want the STOVL version. They've realized during OIF that CAS and their TACP program is essential to warfare, and they see STOVL and forward basing as a way to get on board. They are already onboard. They just seem to grasp the importance of being more versatile a bit better than you do. Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well... Brooks Are you joking? How long have you been around Naval Aviation? When I was at China Lake (for 3 years) we had two class A mishaps (in our manned aircraft... not counting the drones)--both were Harriers--at least one pilot was a TPS grad. For one of the pilots, it was his second ejection from the AV-8B. The other died in a later AV-8B mishap after he'd returned to the fleet. We had one class B mishap--a Harrier. The first guy I knew of from flight school to die in an aircraft accident? Harrier. The only flight school classmate I know who was a POW during DS? Harrier. (Sorry, that last one shouldn't count... Not unique to the STOVL discussion. I was on a roll.) Meaningless. Compare the accident rates per hours flown and get back to me. Then tell us how that applies to the F-35B, a different aircraft with a different lift system. According to a brief by the Navy's Aviation Safety School given a few years back, pilots across the TACAIR spectrum with 500 hours or less accounted for 29% of the general pilot population but were at the controls of 46% of the "Skill Based Error" mishaps. If you split out the AV-8B community, the percentage of less than 500 hours is 36% and they're responsible for 67% of the mishaps. Conclusions: (1) experience counts. (2) the Harrier is a more difficult aircraft to fly. This doesn't account for material failures etc. So flying the AV-8B is more demanding of new pilots. Hardly an indictment of the STOVL concept itself. I don't know the actual rates, but the Harrier's have consistently been higher than fleet average. Then there's common sense. Slow an F-35 down to near stall while simultaneously opening an upper intake door and engaging a power take-off that activates a lift fan. Meanwhile rotate the exhaust nozzle in the back of the jet through two axes. Any one of these single components fails, and there's going to be trouble. If a helos rotor falls off, it crashes, too. Still kind of a rare event. If the F-16's engine dies and can't be restarted, it crashes. So? These opinions of mine were not generated in a vacuum. They were formed through years of operating TACAIR aircraft--occasionally around Harriers... when they weren't falling out of the sky around me. (Sorry, more rant... and attempted dark humor.) There's little doubt in my mind that the F-35 STOVL will be a better platform than the AV-8B, but any slight gain in flexibility of use is still not worth the risk and the cost when compared to a less risky CV or CTOL version. Unless you can't support the operation adequately with the CTOL aircraft. Brooks Now ask me if I think it's a good idea that the F-35 is a single engine aircraft or whether I think it's a good idea that the Navy guys have decided not to put an internal gun on their version. --Woody |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
José Herculano wrote:
Couldn't agree more. The STOVL F-35 is a fact of life. The RN needs them to mantain a fixed wing naval aviation component, the same will apply, in a far smaller scale, to Spain, Italy and Thailand. Japan is almost certain to buy them for their "open deck transports" or whatever PC term they are now using for their carriers in construction. The RAF *thinks* they need'em, and it is hard to argue with them. http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asi...237523,00.html 'I Love Japan, I Love Peace. The Maritime Self-Defence Force,' says a voice-over at the end. They just need a class of Lending Humanitarian Assistance ships operating Justice Support Friendship aircraft. -HJC |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
"JL Grasso" wrote in message ... On 29 Feb 2004 02:32:04 -0800, (sid) wrote: "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . .. (WaltBJ) wrote: Are there two of these 'fly into the trees' accidents? The one I am There was another Airbus CFIT accident a little bit later than the one discussed here. IIRR the aircraft mushed into the upslope of a mountain at night in bad weather. And lack of familiarity with the automation was a factor. There were actually 2 additional CFIT-type crashes involving the A-320. One in Bangalore India in February, 1990; and one in Strasbourg, France in January, 1992. The one that you are referring to is the Strasbourg (Air Inter) accident. Which occurred because the crew programmed a descent rate of 3300 fpm instead of the 3.3 degree descent angle they intended and then failed to monitor the actual height/descent rate so didnt discover the error in time. The aircraft had no GPWS Keith |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Navy opposition to STOVL is about SHIPS not aircraft. They oppose the
concept because they think it threatens 95,000 ton carriers. It is clever sophistry to argue against STOVL JSF on the basis of the performance of the Harrier and, Woody, you know that shipmate. The Harrier uses an entirely different lift/propulsion system, the technology of which is fundamentally unchanged from the introduction of the AV-8A in the early 70s. While later models (Night and Radar/Night) added up-to-date avionics and defensive systems, the lift/propulsion system is little changed. As a consequnce, its accident rate is similar to the jets of the era in which it was designed -- F-4, F-14 etc. The design suffers from maintainability issues similar to aircraft of its design era also. $$ for materiel issues have long been a problem, but as materiel problems have been fixed (like the #3 bearing), accident numbers have gone down. STOVL JSF is an entirely different animal. It is simple to fly -- even fighter guys can do it on the first try (and you don't take it to "near stall" to transition to the landing configuration anymore than you do a conventional aircraft). For STOVL JSF to transition to the SDD phase, the technology issues had to be assessed by the government as "low risk." It is predicted to meet the performance KPPs even at its current weight. On the warfighting side, if fighting an air war was simply a matter of stacking jets somewhere, we could cover the entire battlespace with B-1s or B-2s. (A trivia question -- how many CV sorties does it take to cover the same number of DMPIs that ONE B-1 with a full load of SDBs can cover?) And if tanking isn't an "issue," what's up with all the bragging about what a great tanking capability the Navy's brand new STRIKE aircraft provides...? 45% of Marine CAS sorties during OIF were flown by Harriers -- that's hardly a trivial number, particularly if you're on the ground getting shot at, or facing the prospect of having to deal with massed armor and indirect fires. IIRC, about 1500 strike sorties were flown off L-class ships, principally Bataan and BHR which each operated 20-25 jets. A couple hundred were flown from a "recovered" airfield within 10 minutes of Baghdad. An additional 500+ sorties by the one land based squadron in Kuwait. At one point last year, 100-ish of the roughly 110 fleet AV-8s were deployed in real-world events somewhere in the world -- that total included a Det of land-based AV-8s supporting the Army and SOF bubbas in Afghanistan for a year. "Too little benefit..."?? I think not. "Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message SNIP The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately* throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to have". CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC. That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down space for them will be available, both of which were in short supply last year. In 1991, because we had access to Saudi and Turkish bases, the USAF was able to put 350 tankers on just 5 airbases. Last year, they only had 200 tankers (plus 100 for the airbridge; others were supporting ops in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa), and had to scatter them on 15 airbases. Because of the lack of ramp space, the marines graded a FOB in the northern Kuwaiti desert with a parallel pair of 6,000 foot dirt runways, where they based many of their KC-130s and helos. In addition, they offloaded the helos, men and equipment from two LHA/LHDs, operating each of them with a full AV-8B squadron, just so they wouldn't take up space on an airfield in Kuwait that was needed by the CTOL aircraft. The USAF weren't the only ones with tanker problems. From an article in the April 14th, 2003 AvLeak, "Lessons Learned", pg. 26, by AvLeak's correspondent at a Marine airbase in Kuwait: "Its air campaign has been shaped to a large extent by the fact that the service has only 24 KC-130 tankers in the region, a relatively small number compared with the number of strike aircraft it has assembled. What further complicated the tanker issue is that most KC-130 sorties were dedicated to transporting fuel for helicopters, as well as tanks and other ground vehicles, to forward areas. It is a "rare occurence" for a Marine F/A-18 or AV-8B to be refueled in the air, said a senior Marine Air Group 13 representative, who described the tanker shortage as 'huge'. Problems the USAF has had with its own tankers -- such as poor availability because of the age of the KC-135s -- have exacerbated the dilemma, Marine Corps officials asserted. 'Tanking was very limited,' one Royal Air Force Harrier pilot noted . . . . "Without refueling, fixed-wing a/c operating from here can only fly over Baghdad or points north for a few minutes before having to return to base. Pilots from Harrier squadron VMA-214 noted that without aerial refueling, they had little time to find targets in the 30 x 30-mi. 'kill boxes' set up around Baghdad. "The Marines hope to mitigate the problem by establishing forward operating bases for AV-8Bs and potential F/A-18s. For its helicopter force, the Marines have already built an extensive series of [FARPs]. So far, the Marines have built more than 10 FARPs and have even closed down the first few that are no longer tactically relevant." They definitely established a Harrier FARP and were sitting ground alert and/or turning AV-8Bs at an airfield east of the Euphrates that the marines had captured on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around al-Kut. Which is why the V/STOL F-35 is unnecessary. Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their USMC brethren? Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely hoping to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by ensuring that the STOVL version doesn't get axed. And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a good thing? I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards where/when/how we'll have to fight). Brooks What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping like flies. Guy |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
In message , "Doug \"Woody\" and
Erin Beal" writes On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately* throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to have". CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC. And the equation for "time on station" includes time to and from home base, and time to turn the aircraft around. For a given force size, the nearer your bases for refuelling and rearming, the more aircraft in the cabrank and the fewer in transit to and from. Tankers are useful extenders, but only if fuel is the limiting factor: we're not yet able to do air-to-air rearming. Again, HMS Sheathbill in 1982 is instructive for the extension in cover it allowed. I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards where/when/how we'll have to fight). What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. You could say the same about helicopters: IIRC helo crashes were the biggest single killer of British troops in Telic / Iraqi Freedom. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
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 wrote: 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" wrote: 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. 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. 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 ? 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. 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. 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. 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*. Graham |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
|
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Woody says, "...the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had
the Harriers not been around to help out..." There's a stronger case for the Harriers in OIF than there is for a CV Navy that arrives in the stack with no time-on-station and an understanding of air support that consists of "gimme a 6-digit grid." Woody further states "Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and can auto-rotate." Who's being ridiculous? I guess it doesn't count as bona fide mission unless it's launched from a CV eh? . "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 11:06 PM, in article , "Guy Alcala" wrote: Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message SNIP The groundpounder who wants responsive CAS available *immediately* throughout an operation would differ with you as to whether having an asset capable of hitting a FARP and returning quickly to station is just "nice to have". CAS is available immediately because it is capping nearby--not because it is on some Harrier or STOVL F-35 that's on a mesh field getting fueled and loaded. It is a function of proper planning, sufficient numbers of aircraft, and a good DASC. That also assumes that sufficient numbers of tankers and sufficient bed-down SNIPPAGE... Lots of tanker stats on their way to Baghdad. I don't know which airfield, because the AvLeak guy wasn't allowed to identify it during the war, but I suspect it was around al-Kut. There's a shortage of USAF tankers in EVERY conflict--especially since the demise of the A-6 and proliferation of the Hornet. Citing AV-8B ops in OIF is only slightly relevant. Of course, if you have STOVL capability, use it (OIF)--providing the threat will permit it. You've already sunk the blood sweat and tears into it. My point is, the excessive risk in peace time and the reduction in payload/range isn't worth the small war time advantage, and the outcome of OIF would not have changed significantly had the Harriers not been around to help out. Yes, it's romantic to operate from austere bases in country... Leap-frogging your way to Bagdad. No, it's not worth the risk/hassle. SNIP And you don't think the fact that they were turning A-10s at an FOB in Iraq (a somewhat worse for wear Tallil airbase, IIRR) to avoid the extra 100-130 mile one-way trip back to Kuwait, played any part in their deciding that being able to operate out of austere forward locations (by buying some F-35Bs) might be a good thing? Given the timeline, I don¹t think that particular example is why there's a STOVL F-35 being built. Although I'm fairly certain this is why the USAF is jumping on the STOVL bandwagon. Frankly, I think the A-10 (or some other low/slow/straight-wing design) is a better platform for what we're talking about. SNIP What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. And let's not forget how dangerous that helo VTOL technology is, so let's get rid of the helos while we're at it. Hell, those things have been dropping like flies. Guy Guy, that's just ridiculous. Helos actually have a bona fide mission--and can auto-rotate. Why would you want to get rid of them? --Woody |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:25:05 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: 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'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had diagonal stripes. Pretty conclusive, yes? Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the same one presented in court. Surely there are some good still images from this footage available, right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'? It's so long ago, Jerry that I don't have cites readily to hand. I most certainly did take a great interest in this crash. UK TV did too, with certainly more than one decent documentary about this event. I believe I may still have a vid of at least one of the documentaries in question. And before you try discrediting TV documentaries - realise that in the UK we don't have the same commercial pressures as in the USA and we make possibly the worlds' finest docs. I'm sure. I most certainly recall seeing the 'black box' being recovered in live recorded footage - and it was a fairly tatty looking one ( well worn ). The one presented at the investigation / court was entirely diiferent - almost pristine. You're a complete kook. No I'm not. I'm entirely rational. You're the 'kook' for believing what your're spoon-fed without demur. Citing your recollection of a news clip (which you saw live in 1998) Please illustrate where I said that ? 1998 ! Uh ? as proof that photos you see months (or even years) later do not contain the same components as in the live clip. Actually the clip / photos were in the same documentary. I'm not talking about my memory abilities, good as they are usually. There is also I believe a question over 7 or 10 IIRC 'missing seconds' from the DFDR record !! Yes, it was on the internet - it must be so! Well documented elsewhere. Would you agree that after salvage of a flight recorder that it should be preserved untouched until an expert organisation specialising in recovery of data is able to 'process' it ? Just asking. I'm genuinely interested in your view. Is there a good reason for anyone not ofiically involved in the investigation to step in regardless ? I leave you to draw your own conclusions. You hopefully leave people to do their own investigation. You're just parroting a bunch of kooks. This particular accident investigation is like no other. It stinks. So, you're saying senior AF captains are kooks ? Well.... actually, the 'Concordski' crash investigation was a stitch up too - and that was also down to the French - hmmmm. Different scenario though. Graham |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 8 | July 8th 04 07:01 AM |
More LED's | Veeduber | Home Built | 19 | June 9th 04 10:07 PM |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |