Air France Pilots and Aircrew by French Law , are NOT allowed to strike . Hence the polite wording in the Notice .

So that's why they Air France pilots didn't strike last Novermber? http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...75v2zkSUsa3f3xQ Again, lets not worry about the facts.

As the old saying goes , ........................."Laws are there to be broken ........ but beware of the consequencies!"

So what you're saying is that the French government has an ownership interest of 15.7%.But why worry about contradicting yourself - as long as you can say something that contradicts somebody else.

It is still a private company and not a government owned.

As the old saying goes , ........................."Laws are there to be broken ........ but beware of the consequencies!"

That may be true but Air France pilots still can and do strike. Perhaps you can give us a link to the law you claim they broke?

Lara Jason / MontyIf airspeed is so irrelevant, why do pilots refer to it when setting appropriate speeds for entering turbulence? Surely they would simply use GPS or other groundspeed data if this were the case.Further, if an aircraft were in a "perfect" nose dive, it's ground speed would be zero. So why would the aircraft break apart?Answer: Airspeed.The point I was making is that given AF447 was in turbulent conditions, ground speed data would not be sufficient to ensure the aircraft remained within the required safe airspeeds, as these bear no relation to ground speed. My post was in response to your suggestion that such assumed meteorological conditions in conjunction with pitot tube failure may not have led to disaster (from structural failure) if the pilots had used GPS and other sources to give them groundspeed data. I say again, how does knowledge of groundspeed help one ascertain whether one is within the limits of safe turbulence penetration airspeeds?Perhaps I misread the post of yours that I was responding to.Cheers,Dan

I think the point was that if you have an airspeed of perhaps 400 mph and a ground speed of 500 mph, and then you lose airspeed data, in the absence of any other sources of information on speed, you could use maintaining a 500 mph ground speed as a 'desperate measure'.It would be by no means the best way to ensure a safe airspeed, but in the circumstances, it might be the only option you have. I don't think the suggestion was that it would be anything more than that. I'm sure we all know however, that it would be of dubious utility up by 'coffin corner', where you might only have a very small margin of error between overspeed and stall.Al

If your GROUND SPEED is showing 550 Knots , and starts to drop off , you can assume that your AIR SPEED also drops off . Please bear in mind , that Air Speed is the speed at which you are travelling through the AIR . Ground Speed is your relevant speed across the GROUND beneath you , which is a "vital" necessity in the application of flying principles . :(

A drop in ground speed might entail nothing more than a shift in the direction of winds aloft. The problem is, without reference to airspeed, you simply have no way of differentiating the two scenarios.EDITED to add: And therefore, monitoring ground speed when in "coffin corner" will be of little benefit. That's not to say you might not strike lucky, but remember this is not smooth air we're talking about. Its a storm.Dan

Hello,Ground speed is very important and relevant for a pilot .... of a car Please .. for your own safety .. respect speed limitation and adapt your ground speed when you drive in bad wheater .. or your car risk to go airborn .... Regards.Gus.

Hello,Ground speed is very important and relevant for a pilot .... of a car Please .. for your own safety .. respect speed limitation and adapt your ground speed when you drive in bad wheater .. or your car risk to go airborn .... Regards.Gus.

hehe! :)

I think the point was that if you have an airspeed of perhaps 400 mph and a ground speed of 500 mph, and then you lose airspeed data, in the absence of any other sources of information on speed, you could use maintaining a 500 mph ground speed as a 'desperate measure'.It would be by no means the best way to ensure a safe airspeed, but in the circumstances, it might be the only option you have. I don't think the suggestion was that it would be anything more than that. I'm sure we all know however, that it would be of dubious utility up by 'coffin corner', where you might only have a very small margin of error between overspeed and stall.Al

:( :( :( THANK YOU , Al , that is exactly what I was trying to explain ! If you loose or get "corrupted" or incorrect information to the ADI's and ASI's , this "bullsh*t" is therefore fed directly to the FMC's and INS . This has been the primary cause of so many accidents in the past , which COULD of been averted if the crew had paid attention to it . But in this case of AF447 , it does appear that the crew realised they had a problem with the information being presented on the ASI's , and disconnected the Auto-Throttles and Auto-Pilot .Cheers ,MONTY.

:( :( B) THANK YOU , Al , that is exactly what I was trying to explain ! If you loose or get "corrupted" or incorrect information to the ADI's and ASI's , this "bullsh*t" is therefore fed directly to the FMC's and INS . This has been the primary cause of so many accidents in the past , which COULD of been averted if the crew had paid attention to it . But in this case of AF447 , it does appear that the crew realised they had a problem with the information being presented on the ASI's , and disconnected the Auto-Throttles and Auto-Pilot .Cheers ,MONTY.

I myself wouldn't go as far as saying that the "Ground Speed is your relevant speed across the GROUND beneath you , which is a "vital" necessity in the application of flying principles . :( " (sic) as you have. I still maintain that the most vital speed in the principle of flight remains the airspeed, especially in "coffin corner" - as in fact acknowledged above by Al "Chock" Bradbury in the post of his you quoted.As for stories about popping your head out the side of an aircraft for a ciggy, and watching the smoke drift forward over the nose: Sounds like you were still on the ground. But then again, I wasn't there, was I.Dan

I'm not sure I'm totally convinced by that cigarette smoke story, unless there was some kind of weird localised vortex near the astrodome.I certainly have flown backwards across the landscape many times, it's quite common to do so when ridge soaring in a glider, and I've definitely watched my aircraft's shadow move backwards over the land when doing so, on more than one occasion. But on such occasions I was still going forwards through the air, it's just that the air mass I was going forwards through was moving backwards, so if I'd have stuck a cigarette through the DV panel, it would still have been swept rearwards by the airflow. Making use of the movement of the air mass is of course the principle that makes soaring possible.Al

Ok, I sussed it. The man appears to be a Navigator. So indeed Ground speed would appear to be more relevant to him. Sadly it has nothing to do with keeping an aircraft aloft. Airspeed will only be negative if conducting a tailslide, and even then, the airspeed indicator cannot register it. Apart from this tailslide scenario, smoke will always go aft. On the other hand, groundspeed could in some cases be negative for an airborne aircraft. But this will not result in fag smoke going forward, as airspeed remains positive.LaraJason, you are unmasked!My sentiments pretty much echo those of vololiberista on this matter.Over and out.

As for stories about popping your head out the side of an aircraft for a ciggy, and watching the smoke drift forward over the nose: Sounds like you were still on the ground. But then again, I wasn't there, was I.Dan

No , Dan , I don't believe you were there . Perhaps you weren't even a twinkle in your father's eyes at that time ! This "story" is still referred to on many RNZAF threads about escapades in the famous Bristol 170 "shaker/vibrator" Freighter aircraft .The Perspex astrodome on the aircraft , when opened and folded forwards , does provided a certain amount of aerodynamic buffering .Those of you who are familiar with this aircraft , will always remember seeing a "body" sitting outside the astrodome , directing the pilot whilst taxiing . Forward visibility from the cockpit whilst taxiing , is virtually NIL !Cheers ,MONTY.

http://www.sawfnews.com/Lifestyle/58459.aspxhttp://www.nypost.com/seven/06042009/news/...utes_172538.htmWe need those two boxes.Cheers,MAB