Co-pilot error caused AA 587 crash

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:41:16 -0600, Newps wrote:



Scott M. Kozel wrote:


That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.


SUV's go a lot farther back than that. The Chevy Apache was the
precursor to the Suburban and may have been made in the 50's. The 60's
for sure. I owned a 77 IH Scout when I was in college and IH had been
making them for a while.

I used to have a '50 Chevy crummy -- a panel truck with side windows
and seats. Crummys were originally used for hauling loggers around
the NW woods. Actually, I understand that the term crummy originally
meant the narrowgauge railroad cars that hauled loggers. Mine was
the basic panel truck of the day, with the in-line "bluefire" six. It
got about the same mileage as today's SUVs. I don't know about
rolling over relative to modern SUVs. I lost the right front wheel on
a '52 Chevy pickup one time at 40 mph on a high-crown two-lane
blacktop and it stayed upright. I had to get a new brake drum from
the junkyard, though.

Don

"running with scissors" wrote in
message om...
Stefan wrote in message
...
David CL Francis wrote:

That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
correct.

My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
memory.

Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.

Stefan


no stefan you memory has been blurred by years of alchohol or drug
abuse.

Quote.
Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.
Endquote

so you are saying that Michael Asseline deliberately flew the airbus
into the trees ? and every other PIC/SIC of CFIT incidents ?

****ing moronic ****. **** off and die you waste of space.

Suggestion: Go back to your school and ask then to give you back the tuition
fees you paid them as the education you got there didn't do you much good.
They did not even manage to teach you how to read.

****ing moronic idiot - how perfectly this description fits yourself.

Nik

Stefan wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

I hear what you're saying here. It was claimed by the flight crew that since they were used to
flying in and out of large airports, the visual references of a small airfield gave them a false
impression.

I must admit that this makes some sense.

Sorry, which bit don't you understand ? Overlooking the shorter runway length ?

No, the forest, of course. I think a pilot should be able to recognize a
forest when seeing it, even if it should happen not to be on the VAC...
Can't remember why I even mentioned runway length.

Pre-occupation with the current task might be the reason ? Think about the Tristar that descended into
the Everglades 'cos the flight crew were trying to see if they had a broken indicator lamp for
example.


Graham

Chris W wrote:

Corky Scott wrote:

Since they *MUST* have four wheel drive in order to keep their light
truck status, commercials continually hype the usefulness of their
off-road capability, despite the fact that many of them are sold in
states where no snow or ice normally falls.

Do you seriously think that snow and ice are the only reason to have
4WD? You need to get out of the city more. On steep mountain roads a
little rain can make 4WD helpful. Drive down a dirt road after some bad
rain often enough and you will wish eventually wish you had 4WD

I think the point is - not may 4WDs of the SUV variety ever see a dirt road.



Graham

running with scissors wrote:

"khobar" wrote in message news:E00gd.82589$kz3.38453@fed1read02...
"running with scissors" wrote in
message om...
Jose wrote in message
.com...
An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air
show

What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?

Jose

al flyby.

Paris / Air France.

Is Paris a continent too? Or are you just being stupid for fun?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul Nixon

the question posed was "What was an A320 doing full of passengers at
an airshow?"

the response "a flyby. paris / air france"

No the response is - "a flyby. Mulhouse-Habsheim / air france"


if you cant work out that an air france a320 with pax on board was
doing a fly-by at an airshow in paris,

Errr..... Mulhouse-Habsheim.



Graham

running with scissors wrote:

devil wrote in message ...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:

Jose wrote in message .com...
An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show

What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?

Jose

al flyby.

Paris / Air France.

No such a thing in Paris.

yeah? look up paris airshow 1988. an airfrance 320 undertook a flyby
which didnt go according to plan.

prick

Google gives one result http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~szewczyk/cs294-8/hw1.html which is factually incorrect.

Try this instead http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...use+a320&meta=

Graham

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.


Graham

running with scissors wrote:

Stefan wrote in message ...
David CL Francis wrote:

That is a very much abbreviated version but I believe substantially
correct.

My memory has blurred during all those years, but yes, now I rememberm,
this is exactly how it was found in the report. Thanks for refreshing my
memory.

Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.

Stefan

no stefan you memory has been blurred by years of alchohol or drug
abuse.

Quote.
Summary: You can fly any airplane into the trees if you deliberately
wish to do so.
Endquote

so you are saying that Michael Asseline deliberately flew the airbus
into the trees ? and every other PIC/SIC of CFIT incidents ?

****ing moronic ****. **** off and die you waste of space.

Michael Asseline even wrote a book to explain what he had experienced. I doubt a Capt with
a guilty conscience would write a book about his accident.

Graham

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:

"Corky Scott" wrote:

The light truck loophole was created originally to give hard working
farmers a break.

SUV's were originally designed as light closed vehicles for small buisnesses
such as florists, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc that were dressed
up/decked out & marketed to families needing a vehicle larger than a sedan.

That is true. I first saw Chevrolet Blazers on highway construction
projects in the mid-1970s, and that was one of the first SUV-like
vehicles, a light truck closed vehicle with 4-wheel drive.

Over here, the range Rover was introduced in 1970. The current model is still
recognisably its successor due to its distinctive styling.

Smaller than a Blazer of course.


Graham

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:18:58 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:



running with scissors wrote:

devil wrote in message ...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:03:21 -0700, running with scissors wrote:

Jose wrote in message .com...
An A320 full of passengers doing something it shouldn't have at an air show

What was an A320 doing full of passengers at an airshow?

Jose

al flyby.

Paris / Air France.

No such a thing in Paris.

yeah? look up paris airshow 1988. an airfrance 320 undertook a flyby
which didnt go according to plan.

prick

Google gives one result http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~szewczyk/cs294-8/hw1.html which is factually incorrect.

Fascinating. So there are more idiots caring so little about their own
credibility even to put that crap on their web page. And, to add insult
to injury, at my very own alma mater. Oh well.


Try this instead http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...use+a320&meta=

did you really have to tell our friend? Wasn't it so much funnier when he
insisted in making sure he looked like a fool?