AF447 Vanity Fair article

Very interesting dynamics between the crew members....the attitude and somewhat hostile setting certainly added a layer of crap to the sandwich they were about to eat!

TERRIBLE flight control design too......IMHO...:confused2:
 
I thought it was an EXCELLENT article, like I wanted to stand up and applaud...but I'm sure the usual suspec...I mean Experts will be along shortly to excoriate him for suggesting that there might be a bit overmuch reliance on automation...
 
Last edited:
William Langewiesche is a pilot. He's also a phenomenal researcher/writer. Also, his father wrote Stick and Rudder, way back in the 1940s.

I can personally recommend A) Almost anything he's ever written, but B) Inside the Sky. It's a bit dated, now (written in the late 90s, IMS), but still beautifully written.

He's also former freight-trash, so, you know, even better.

I should add that Stick and Rudder is an excellent primer to this day for the junior birdman. Some of the terminology is a bit dated, and some of the topics discussed no longer really apply, but the man had a talent for explaining the nuts and bolts of flying airplanes in a direct, easily understood fashion, whilst somehow remaining a bit less dry and narcolepsy-inducing than an advisory circular.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely incredible read, he has explained for the layperson why a senior 777 captain can no longer fly a simple visual approach.
 
I do believe this was one of the guys the NTSB came down on for the AAMP. 90 degree flip in sim sessions caused by wake turbulence + rudder for recovery applies for F4 Phanthoms. Not A300s.


Wasn't just the NTSB, it was both Boeing and Airbus. In Boeings case it was before the A300 accident. AA were warned and did not listen. Not to say the there isn't a lot of good info in the AAMP program, because there is. It's just they did not understand what the implication were for some of what they taught, specifically full opposite rudder deflections.

In regards to the Vanity Fair article, it is an excellent piece of journalism.


TP
 
Actually, he missed many aspects of the factual history of the accident. Several of his "facts" are actually wrong. He read it looking for a conclusion, kind of like many do with religious texts. He has some good information and is an excellent writer, but I do not think his conclusions were accurate. He missed it.
 
Actually, he missed many aspects of the factual history of the accident. Several of his "facts" are actually wrong. He read it looking for a conclusion, kind of like many do with religious texts. He has some good information and is an excellent writer, but I do not think his conclusions were accurate. He missed it.

Well?
 
Back
Top