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