On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:06:37 -0800, Andy Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Cameron Moore wrote: > > "Safety board says pilots can cause tail fin to break off" > > http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/08/ntsb.flight587/index.html > > > > IANAPNAE, but this sounds like they're blaming the pilot for a weak > > tail fin. Thought it was interesting... > >There's politics at work here somewhere. The actual statement by the >NTSB was actually fairly straightforward and plausible. But the fact >that it was made at a podium in front of a room full of reporters >pretty much guaranteed that the "pilot error" angle would be played >up. Weird. <snip> >What this doesn't address is why the tail of this particular airliner >fell off while it was travelling at a comparatively modest speed. >Anything over 250 kts would have been illegal at that altitude and >would have been REALLY played up by the media. But the point is >valid; the NTSB quizzed a bunch of pilots about Vne issues and >discovered that most of them were clueless about the subject. > >So they pointed the training problem out. > >In front of a room full of reporters... Probably for three reasons: a) They perceive a gap in the training of pilots that they think needs filling and they want to pressure the FAA to fill it and pilots to 'self educate' about it. b) There was a lot of speculation in the press (certainly over here) about inherent design flaws in A300's, or possible all Airbus products, or possibly all composite components... and they wanted to point out that there are other possible contributing or causal factors. I got the impression that, in the UK at least, many people believed the cause had already been found to be an Airbus design flaw. At least that's the impression you would have got from our press. c) They had a scheduled new conference and this was the only issue they could say anything substantive about st this point in the investigation. Or they needed the press of their backs and so gave them a story to run with Its probably a combination of all three. >What this doesn't address is why the tail of this particular airliner >fell off while it was travelling at a comparatively modest speed. >Anything over 250 kts would have been illegal at that altitude and >would have been REALLY played up by the media. But the point is >valid; the NTSB quizzed a bunch of pilots about Vne issues and >discovered that most of them were clueless about the subject. They are probably still working v.hard on this one. They can publicise that bit when they find out what it is. Rick -- David Farrent and Dougie O'Hara on the Cold War role of the ROC: 'What a world of sorrow is hidden in those few words - "[Post attack] crew changes would have been based on crew availability."' _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
