Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

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.



Fjuckwit

bertie

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

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.



Fjuckwit

bertie