Well as I'm sure everyone here does too, I have the deepest sympathy for the families of all who died on AF447, passengers and crew, but the point of an investigation is to find out what happened and so hope to prevent it happening again, and if sensitivities get affected, then that's just the way it has to be in order to prevent even more such tragedies. If the last two minutes of conversation on the flight deck reveal that the crew was in confusion over systems and how to operate them, then it is relevant to the investigation, as it points to a possible problem with either the man-machine interface, or the level of training given in order to use it. It would not be the first time such a haptic/understanding fault has been found on the Airbus - see the Air Inter A320 crash for evidence of that.Al

Agreed.

...You also ignore that you concealed that CNN were merely reporting what some one else, the Daily Mail. had said, UK members will know the Daily Mail's reputation.

Be reasonable, as the OP of this thread I provided a URL to the CNN clip, so if you're discussing here I assume you saw the clip. Cheers, - jahman.

Of course I saw the clip. I even reposted the item you posted where you edited out that the source was the Daily , not CNN itself- presumably because it didn't fit your argument. The least we should expect here is intellectual honesty.

All arguments aside, where I'm coming from is basically this: We know AF447 crashed, so it either crashed because the crew did something wrong, or because something went wrong with the aircraft systems in terms of either maintenance, or by design. Since the plane was constructed in France, maintained in France and operated by France with a French crew, any way you paint it France ends up culpable and it does not make them look good and it does EADS no favours either. So if that was you, would you not try and go for the least damaging to yourself of the possibe conclusions? If you blame the crew it then means the aircraft is not suspect and thus sales are less likely to be affected. You'll even manage to look benevolent if you feign being appalled at the 'leaked'' CVR transcript blaming the crew. It should not be a surprise to anyone to know that this is something that has happened many times in AAIs, pretty much since the first contract for aeroplanes existed, and let's be honest, even the coolest pilot on the planet is probably not going to sound good when they know they are heading for the deck hard, so it's invariably easy to paint a crew in a bad light with what they are saying seconds before they know they've had it. For modern example though, take the crash of the RAF Chinook on a Scottish peninsular some years ago. For many years the crew's families fought to have the initial 1995 RAF investigation which blamed the crew more honestly appraised than it had been. In 2011 a new investigation cleared the pilots of blame, and it was revealed that the accident was highly likely to have been as a result of the FADEC system needing a revision, which it has subsequently received. Again, you won't find a smoking gun, but I don't think you have to be Hercule Poirot to determine where the influence on the original investigation was most likely coming from when billions of dollars worth of military contracts were at risk. Al

Of course I saw the clip. I even reposted the item you posted where you edited out that the source was the Daily , not CNN itself- presumably because it didn't fit your argument. The least we should expect here is intellectual honesty.

I din't edit anything out: The clip is the clip. As a matter of convenience I transcribed the pilot conversations, as spoken on-camera by Richard Quest of CNN. Never imagined someone might be calling me intellectually dishonest for accurately transcribing a portion of a CNN clip, that anyone interested in checking can watch for himself. I suppose you must be running low on intellectual arguments to switch from arguing the message to attacking the messenger. Anyway, I've said my piece, I agree with what Al is saying, you will probably never change your mind (we had a similar run-in on another thread where you again blindly believed a crash report from a third-world government over what a documentalist and ex-airline pilot reported), so there's not much more left for me to add here. Cheers, - jahman.

I paraphrase

All arguments aside, where I'm coming from is basically this: We know B787 crashed, so it either crashed because the crew did something wrong, or because something went wrong with the aircraft systems in terms of either maintenance, or by design. Since the plane was constructed in US, maintained in US and operated by US with a US crew, any way you paint it France ends up culpable and it does not make them look good and it does Boeing no favours either. So if that was you, would you not try and go for the least damaging to yourself of the possibe conclusions?

So we can't trust any accident investigation? As for editing, compare the image you posted in post #29 with the version I posted in post #66. You edited out the fact that the source of the infoprmation was the Daily Mail, not CNN. Presumably you did this because it didn't fit with your argument we should trust CNN investigations?

So we can't trust any accident investigation?

Polarizing your opponent's arguments into an extreme position is a poor debating strategy. No one is saying we should not believe any accident reports! What is being said (with Al being more eloquent than me) is that in this particular case, given there is a lot of money and prestige of national carriers and industries involved, and given CNN is reporting discrepancies in the CVR transcript that are potentially damaging to the pilot training program of AF and to the FBW design of Airbus, and given government a rich record of government reports of all kinds having been "directed" by many governments , there is a strong possibility that BEA is fudging the AF447 report. Can you live with this? And drop the CNN vs. Daily Mail thing! CNN is reporting the information, and CNN is putting it's own reputation behind reporting this story by reporting it. Period. Cheers, - jahman.

They didn't react in the proper manner right at the start of the incident, thus compounding everything that they did thereafter. They did not react correctly to the stall warnings, nor did they "read" their instruments, but neither did any of them seem to understand that they subsequently were causing the full stall by their own actions. Their lack of piloting skills was clearly evident. The last couple of minutes only shows they they had absolutely no idea at all of what they were doing. they were reacting like completely untrained persons.Fortunately there are airlines (BA being one) that put a lot of emphasis into training for unforseen events and continuing pilot skills within the modern glass cockpit enviroment.vololiberista

... given CNN is reporting discrepancies in the CVR transcript....

What discrepancies? In your desire to make your point you obviously didn't check the facts. If you had, you'd have found that all* the phrases in the CNN transcript, except for the last two, appear in BEA's transcript allowing for differences in translation. For example, "Go back up" repeated 4 times corresponds to "Climb" repeated 4 times when said by the same pilot. The last two phrases add nothing to the facts and BEA probably omitted them to avoid distress - a point which wouldn't concern the meda. You really shouldn't blindly believe what the media wants you to believe * Edit: one is marginal but I'll leave others to find it.

I'm not sure what the point of grabbing part of my post and editing it was. Al

I'm not sure what the point of grabbing part of my post and editing it was.Al

To make the point that what you said about the French and EADS would be equally applicable to the US and Boeing so that the NTSB cannpt be trusted, nor, by implication, can the AAIB or any other accident investigation team. It's a point of view, but if you don't trust them surely you certainly can't trust the media.

To make the point that what you said about the French and EADS would be equally applicable to the US and Boeing so that the NTSB cannpt be trusted, nor, by implication, can the AAIB or any other accident investigation team.

Except that I did not write that, what I was alluding to was the fact that governments can put pressure on organisations to slant things one way or another. I did not make a sweeping generalisation that all organisations themselves inherently cannot be trusted, and frankly, if it is a revelation to you that on occasion governments cannot be trusted and can do dodgy things, then I wonder which planet you have been living on if that notion is new to you LOL Al

Al, again +1! If I'm ever in you'r neck of the woods I'd invite you for a pint of beer!And of course you too, mgh! We'd all have a merry good time! :( Cheers, jahman.

The title of this thread is AF447 Cockpit Chaos: The crew's last 2 minutes that AF and the govt don't want you to hearI wonder why there's no acknowledgement that all but one of the significant phrases that Air France and the the Government don't want you to hear appear in BEA's report?

Perhaps this thread should be renamed AF447 Cockpit Chaos: The crew's last 2 minutes that AF and the govt want you to hear ?