In article . com,
says...



The relevant
section is at the end.



The "relevant section" is not in this article - or in much of anything
published by this Seattle-based newspaper aviation authority.

I wouldn't question his objectivity, even though he is the author of this
article :
Aggressive sales style helps Boeing soar past Airbus in new orders
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...ecovery13.html

in 1995 - the third consecutive year in which Airbus sales surpassed Boeing,
and notwithstanding the fact that a Google serach on his name reveals a litany
of strident Airbus-bashing...

And I wouldn't question his knowledge of the subject - I' sure it is simply
time and space constraints which prevent him from revealing any of the vast
technical references he surely holds which would support his claims...

Things get a little stickier though when he claims that that version of A320
had a "landing mode" which completely precluded the pilot from making a
recovery - when newspaper reporters publish demonstrably false statements it
just takes some of the shine off - for me anyway...

Planes equipped for CATIIIc approaches have a "land" mode, which when engaged
is 'expected' to terminate in an autoland prodecure. Aside the fact that this
was not the case (or anything close to it) for the Airbus in question, does
anyone here really believe that Airbus or Boeing would make a plane that
"decides" to land and "cannot" be over-ridden by pilot action?
Kev, please be clear - is this what you're asking us to believe?

In sum - the reality is clear.
The thing has NSA written all over it!
It's clear the plane was being controlled from OUTSIDE (possibly from as far
away as Washington) and was deliberately crashed to discredit Airbus. The only
failure was that the pilot was not expected to survive - since he did, they
had to get to work fast on the flight recorders so they could diecredit him
as well.