Comments:Air France, pilots union, victims group criticise transatlantic disaster probe
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|AF269||2||20:24, 10 August 2011|
Kind of reminds me ofback in 1988. It was a test flight for the new A320. The aircraft was to fly low in a very slow nose-up position along a runway at an airshow before climbing again; but at the end of the runway was a forest. The pilot tried to speed up but wasn't quick enough, and it crashed. The investigators blamed the pilot, who survived, but he said there was a flaw with the aircraft's engines which meant they didn't respond quickly enough. I've never been sure myself.
I'm glad someone else is making this connection. For me, the key point was at the pilot's trial when it became apparent the flight recorders had been tampered with; bluntly, that they likely hadn't come from the accident aircraft at all.
The other clear connection I'm making is to allegations made during the Concorde trial. Less certain on that, but I'm feeling there's an unknown something missing from that story. That missing gear spacer (which made the aircraft veer on the runway) is such a huge coincidence if unconnected, but that would imply all the stuff with the metal strip was instead a coincidence... Hard to swallow either of those, for me.
269 was eventually proved to be a slow responding engine command. The pilot was exonerated on the basis of audio from cockpit voice recording. This is much more serious, surely they still have altimeter and artificial horizon? These should have shown the crew that they were falling??