More on Air France

[wim121]

You really are an ignorant, judgemental cock aren't you?
Fook, words fail me about what an absolute tosser you are.

Rather than having a hissy fit and breaking the rules of the site, why dont you actually come back with an intelligent response, that is, if you're capable of doing so?

[sasguru]

Rather than having a hissy fit and breaking the rules of the site, why dont you actually come back with an intelligent response, that is, if you're capable of doing so?

Why don't you re-read your post and work out why my post is intelligent.
If you can.
Moron.

[shaunbhoy]

come back with an intelligent response, that is, if you're capable of doing so?

Haven't studied sasguru's posting history, have you?

[wim121]

Why don't you re-read your post and work out why my post is intelligent.
If you can.
Moron.

It wasnt intelligent at all. It was just a blatent insult with no point at all. Im still waiting for you to explain why you dont believe it is common knowledge on the symptoms and indicators of a stall and the recovery steps needed.

Just because you lack the intelligence to understand it, doesnt mean the rest of the passengers do.

Highlighting the section about my inexperience, actually helped prove my point and made you out to be the fool.

My entire point was, even members of the public who arent pilots, are aware that a pilot should listen and respond to what the aircraft is telling the pilot above and before instruments.

It is extremely basic training for all pilots, to be taught the signs of a stall and to ignore the inclination to pitch the nose up and instead, increase speed while pitching the nose lower to recover from the stall. Very basic checks, such as looking at the throttle position would have indicated that they did not have enough thrust to maintain level flight. Pilots are taught how to prioritise in an emergency situation when multiple problems arise and the first step is to maintain level flight before troubleshooting lesser concerns.

Before addressing any instrument concerns, a pilot must always ensure that physical concerns such as the plane staying in the air, is dealt with first.



So feel free to counter those facts if you like, but even I know it and the majority of the passengers knew it. Everyone apart from the arrogant french pilots and yourself know it.

[sasguru]

It wasnt intelligent at all. It was just a blatent insult with no point at all. Im still waiting for you to explain why you dont believe it is common knowledge on the symptoms and indicators of a stall and the recovery steps needed.

Just because you lack the intelligence to understand it, doesnt mean the rest of the passengers do.

Highlighting the section about my inexperience, actually helped prove my point and made you out to be the fool.

My entire point was, even members of the public who arent pilots, are aware that a pilot should listen and respond to what the aircraft is telling the pilot above and before instruments.

It is extremely basic training for all pilots, to be taught the signs of a stall and to ignore the inclination to pitch the nose up and instead, increase speed while pitching the nose lower to recover from the stall. Very basic checks, such as looking at the throttle position would have indicated that they did not have enough thrust to maintain level flight. Pilots are taught how to prioritise in an emergency situation when multiple problems arise and the first step is to maintain level flight before troubleshooting lesser concerns.

Before addressing any instrument concerns, a pilot must always ensure that physical concerns such as the plane staying in the air, is dealt with first.



So feel free to counter those facts if you like, but even I know it and the majority of the passengers knew it. Everyone apart from the arrogant french pilots and yourself know it.

Keep posting armchair expert.
You're doing more to prove you're a cock than I could
Congratulations, in spite of the ever strong competition, you are Village idiot of the Week.

[Arturo Bassick]

everything WIM says is (sort of) true. It is his conclusion that I would question. These pilots will have been well trained and were experienced. Yet they still crashed.

The airline industry has a habit of laying it on the pilots because that is the easiest option.

There is more to come with this story.




Currently working on Airbus A350 and talk about this subject with some very senior people.

[ChimpMaster]

It wasnt intelligent at all. <snip>

It's about as intelligent as he gets

[Support Monkey]

Its still the safest way to travel, when you look at the amount of people that fly every year, thankfully accidents are very rare its just when they do happen its a large amount of people in one go, they may blame the pilots but its the engineers that have to live with themselves afterwards which is why checks are so stringent

Clarkson summed it up on one of his other programmes when he said "x amount of millions of people have flown this year and not a single one of them died"

[TimberWolf]

Yup.

You can't fight back when you're dead.

Look how long it's taken to get some minor justice for the pilots who died in the Chinook crash in Scotland back in the 90s.

The dead can't defend themselves. Though saying that, there was a zombie film on last night where they were doing precisely that.

[Arturo Bassick]

Yup.

You can't fight back when you're dead.

Look how long it's taken to get some minor justice for the pilots who died in the Chinook crash in Scotland back in the 90s.

Not just the fact they can not defend themselves.
It is about public confidence.
The public will accept pilot error and keep flying as the same pilot can not make that error again.
If there was a hint that one type of aircraft might not be safe then people might not fly.
A recall and check of all those aircraft to allay public fears would cost a fortune.

Easier to blame the pilot and do the checks or part replacement during routine maintenance and hope it doesn't happen again. In this case those extreme circumstances are highly unlikely to happen again.