Timothy wrote:
Yes, containing the immortal phrase….
NTSB/AAIB have a good idea of the stick position at the crash moment, that is how they justify the class of the accident (uncontrolled flight or controlled flight), no need from them to go that much into details…
Ibra wrote:
no need from them to go that much into details…
Seeing that per Annex 13 the purpose of these reports is to learn from them, I fully support their tactics of giving a clear indication of what the hell was going on. The message should be clear to those reading it. To quote Mr Bill again, some folks think that BJ’s are not qualified as sexual relations. So some other darwin candidate might think they can get away with this rather than a full blown sex act (pun intended) which would probably anyway overtax the AP.
Remember those videos which turned up of some south american crew having “fun” in the flight deck with an FA? It was not a career enhancer I believe. Similarily, the former AOM crew members featured in a similar Youtube video were probably glad their airline did not exist anymore at the time this came out. And of course a DC10 over the Atlantic is a totally different thing than a GA plane, space and autoflight wise.
Ibra wrote:
NTSB/AAIB have a good idea of the stick position at the crash moment, that is how they justify the class of the accident (uncontrolled flight or controlled flight), no need from them to go that much into details…
If pilot distraction was a causal factor then certainly they should go into those details in order to explain how they arrived at the conclusion that the pilot was distracted.
