How many A320-100s?

off on a tangent 😉

I have learned that after many years of usenet. 😀

http://www.airdisaster.com/accrep/

scores about the a320 report

Well, I’m sorry…. 😮

lol

find your own corner to stand in! you’re in mine right now! LMAO!

Do you? I don’t, I think had the public known that their is a fatal flaw in a FBW System, all sense of trust would be lost, which would be a HUGE step-back for the technology, which has since proven itself on many different aircraft. As I say, I am not saying they were right or wrong, but for the “greater good” of the technology; and the A320 Programme, which has also become a huge success. Sadly, it cost lifes…

Funny… you’ve got the stance folk would expect me to have. LOL!

eg?

http://www.airdisaster.com/accrep/

if you would care to read through Airdisaster, you will see it also had a large database of official reports.

eg?

Looks like I have unwittingly opened a ‘can of worms’? 😮

no, its only everday the same

ASN is based on officel reports and not thoughts of someone

if you would care to read through Airdisaster, you will see it also had a large database of official reports.

as trustworthy as Airdisaster.com

ASN is based on officel reports and not thoughts of someone

Looks like I have unwittingly opened a ‘can of worms’? 😮

off on a tangent 😉

I’m not saying Airbus/Air France were right/wrong. However, a brand new technology was beiing implemented, one that would offer far greater safety features that current aircraft. If the blackbox was handed over as per any other crash, do you think the FBW System would make it this far? Into further Airbus aircraft? Boeing Aircraft? Embraer Aircraft? etc

Remember, I am not saying they were right or wrong to do so…

I think the FBW system would have made it past the incident either way. It does have benefits and as can be seen has brought success. As you say it had its teething problems, as any new technology would.

But had the evidence been viewed properly, the people responsible for the shortcomings and the apparent attempt to hide it would have been shot (not literally).

aviation Safety is the more thrustfull score

Looks like I have unwittingly opened a ‘can of worms’? 😮

aviation Safety is the more thrustfull score

as trustworthy as Airdisaster.com

Don’t beleive everything you read in that report.

The black boxes for this aircraft where in the hands of airbus/air france for 2 weeks before being handed over to the proper authorities something that should not have been allowed. The boxes are suppose to be taken away by investigators immediately. The Investigation then found that the data the retrieved did not match the fight profile of accident aicraft. Inexplicably, the investigation ignored this basic evidence of tampering and reported what beistrich linked to above.

I wonder what airbus/air france did to the data :rolleyes: Oh, and they handed over a Data recorder that did not match the one assigned to the aircraft that crashed.

Link to third party investigation

aviation Safety is the more thrustfull score

Don’t beleive everything you read in that report.

The black boxes for this aircraft where in the hands of airbus/air france for 2 weeks before being handed over to the proper authorities something that should not have been allowed. The boxes are suppose to be taken away by investigators immediately. The Investigation then found that the data the retrieved did not match the fight profile of accident aicraft. Inexplicably, the investigation ignored this basic evidence of tampering and reported what beistrich linked to above.

I wonder what airbus/air france did to the data :rolleyes: Oh, and they handed over a Data recorder that did not match the one assigned to the aircraft that crashed.

Link to third party investigation

F-GFKC

The newly delivered A.320 was to perform for Air Charter a series of flights on behalf of the Mulhouse Flying Club. The crew were a.o. to overfly Mulhouse-Habsheim airport two times (first at low speed, gear down at 100 feet and the other at high speed in clean configuration) as part of an airshow. The aircraft took off from Basle-Mulhouse at 14:41 and climbed to 1000 feet agl. The crew started the descent three minutes later and Habsheim was in sight at 450 feet agl. The first officer informed the captain that the aircraft was reaching 100 feet at 14:45:14. The descent continued to 50 feet 8 seconds later and further to 30-35 feet. Go-around power was added at 14:45:35). The A.320 continued and touched trees at the end of the runway at 14:45:40 with a 14deg pitch attitude and engine speed being 83% N1. The plane sank slowly into the forest and a fire broke out. PROBABLE CAUSES: “The Commission believes that the accident resulted from the combination of the following conditions: 1) very low flyover height, lower than surrounding obstacles; 2) speed very slow and reducing to reach maximum possible angle of attack; 3) engine speed at flight idle; 4) late application of go-around power. This combination led to impact of the aircraft with the trees. The Commission believes that if the descent below 100 feet was not deliberate, it may have resulted from failure to take proper account of the visual and aural information intended to give the height of the aircraft.”

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1988/880626-0.htm

http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtml

This one? Hopefully the link will work! 😮

THE accident I think?

These are all the A320-111 a/c currently in service..
GFKC lost in accident)

Which accident? dc10fan :confused: ?

These are all the A320-111 a/c currently in service..

G-BUSB/C/D/E/F Ordered by BCAL and inherited by BA.(Only 1/2 were del. in BCAL col)
F-GGEA/B/C/D/E/F/G Ordered/operated by Air Inter; now in Air France service.
F-GFKA/B/D/E/F/G Ordered/operated by Air France.(GFKC lost in accident)