It seems that the F-35, the fighter jets that Canada is planning on buying to replace our aging F-18s, are running into more trouble.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that the plane's power systems are failing in ground tests forcing the entire fleet to be grounded. The story also points out that the planes have had two other serious delays in the last year.
In 2010, the government announced that it would be buying about 65 planes at a cost of about $9-billion. The cost could rise to $18-billion once a maintenance contract was included. But earlier this year, the parliamentary budget officer estimated that the cost of the planes would likely be much higher, closer to $30-billion. Canada's purchase of the F-35 became a major issue in the last federal election, with then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff vowing to scrap the deal and hold a competition.
Critics have condemned the Canadian government for rushing into a contract for the jets without knowing the final cost.
"Like your [the Canadian] government's proposed purchase of F-35s before all testing is complete and all costs are known, the United States has been rushing to "buy" before we "fly" for decades. It has been a disaster." wrote Winslow T. Wheeler in Embassy magazine.
In the U.S. the plane's skyrocketing costs, estimates say it'll cost the U.S. government around $1-trillion or comparable to the annual GDP of Australia, have made the plane controversial. The plane was also touted as a one-size-fits-all replacement for the Army, Navy and Marines. In the end, it may have just doomed the plane to cost-overruns and reduced its performance.
"The F-35's critics have long argued that its performance is compromised by having to fulfil too many roles and that an over-complicated design lashed to an over-optimistic schedule was asking for trouble. In the past 18 months, as delays have mounted and costs escalated, even some of the plane's ardent fans have become alarmed," the Economist wrote.
In May, the Atlantic wrote about how engineers scrambled to develop a second alternate engine for the plane, a move that could actually cost more money in the long run.
"What's remarkable about this is that the Pentagon doesn't event want a second engine, having already contracted one from Pratt & Whitney. In 2006, the Pentagon decided to stop funding the development of the second engine for the aircraft, citing a spiraling price tag. For the next five years Congress overrode the DOD's wishes and spent billions of dollars on this extra engine anyway," Joshua Foust and August Cole wrote on the magazine's website.
There's also some question as to whether the planes are even necessary. Whether it's worth the expense to build an expensive stealth-fighter when the days of the Cold War are long gone and threats like terrorism, piracy and failed states are more common.
"The world has changed. The odds of great power war have declined dramatically. We still need a deterrent capacity against China and Russia, but how much is enough? In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia," writes the Atlantic's Dominic Tierney.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr has hired two Toronto lawyers known for their work in national security and constitutional law and fired his long-time Canadian attorneys, who twice argued his case before the Supreme Court.
Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr has hired two Toronto lawyers known for their work in national security and constitutional law and fired his long-time Canadian attorneys, who twice argued his case before the Supreme Court.
A press release Thursday announced that John Norris and Brydie Bethell would represent the 24-year-old war criminal in Canada, where he will be transferred sometime during the next three months to serve the remainder of an eight-year sentence.
The news came as a shock to Edmonton-based lawyers Nathan Whitling and Dennis Edney, who learned about the firing through the press.
Whitling had left the case earlier this year after changing law firms, but Edney had been in Guantanamo visiting Khadr just last month.
“I wish him all the best,” Edney said.
Khadr wrote in a statement to the lawyers: “I wholeheartedly recognize the extraordinary commitment you have shown in everything that you have done for me . . . . Although I feel deeply indebted to you for your dedication, changing counsel at this time is in my best interests.”
Khadr will be transferred to a Canadian prison sometime before Oct. 31, according to a plea deal reached last fall.
Khadr confessed to five war crimes, including “murder in violation of the laws of war,” for throwing a grenade in during a 2002 Afghanistan firefight that fatally wounded U.S. soldier Sgt. Christopher Speer.
In return for his plea, he was given one additional year in Guantanamo and a promise from the Canadian government to bring him home for the additional seven years.
Khadr’s legal representation has been one of the side stories of the nine-year-old case as Khadr fired, re-hired or replaced the phalanx of U.S. civilian or military lawyers.
But Edney and Whitling, who have fought the case pro bono (as will Norris and Bethell), have been a consistent presence.
Canadian lawyers were not given official status at the Guantanamo proceedings but known instead as “foreign attorney consultants.”
Pentagon-appointed lawyers Lt.-Col. Jon Jackson and Maj. Matthew Schwartz remain on Khadr’s case.
A press release Thursday announced that John Norris and Brydie Bethell would represent the 24-year-old war criminal in Canada, where he will be transferred sometime during the next three months to serve the remainder of an eight-year sentence.
The news came as a shock to Edmonton-based lawyers Nathan Whitling and Dennis Edney, who learned about the firing through the press.
Whitling had left the case earlier this year after changing law firms, but Edney had been in Guantanamo visiting Khadr just last month.
“I wish him all the best,” Edney said.
Khadr wrote in a statement to the lawyers: “I wholeheartedly recognize the extraordinary commitment you have shown in everything that you have done for me . . . . Although I feel deeply indebted to you for your dedication, changing counsel at this time is in my best interests.”
Khadr will be transferred to a Canadian prison sometime before Oct. 31, according to a plea deal reached last fall.
Khadr confessed to five war crimes, including “murder in violation of the laws of war,” for throwing a grenade in during a 2002 Afghanistan firefight that fatally wounded U.S. soldier Sgt. Christopher Speer.
In return for his plea, he was given one additional year in Guantanamo and a promise from the Canadian government to bring him home for the additional seven years.
Khadr’s legal representation has been one of the side stories of the nine-year-old case as Khadr fired, re-hired or replaced the phalanx of U.S. civilian or military lawyers.
But Edney and Whitling, who have fought the case pro bono (as will Norris and Bethell), have been a consistent presence.
Canadian lawyers were not given official status at the Guantanamo proceedings but known instead as “foreign attorney consultants.”
Pentagon-appointed lawyers Lt.-Col. Jon Jackson and Maj. Matthew Schwartz remain on Khadr’s case.
Gustaf Reinfeldt, the 18-year-old son of the Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has secured a job at US hamburger chain McDonald's
Gustaf Reinfeldt, the 18-year-old son of the Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has secured a job at US hamburger chain McDonald's, using his Twitter feed to invite friends in for a grilled patty, according to news website Nyheter24.se.
A little work will be fun! Feels really good," Gustaf, the eldest son to the PM and his wife Filippa Reinfeldt, said on his Twitter feed.
The junior Reinfeldt continued to confirm that he is to ply his trade at the Kungsgatan branch of the global fast-food chain, offering Stockholmers the chance to be served by a member of one of the most well-known families in Swedish society.
"Drop by and have a hamburger," he urged one of his Twitter followers.
Tuesday's announcement of his impending McDonald's employment is not the first time that Gustaf Reinfeldt's online activities have thrust him into the public eye.
In February 2009, he joined a Facebook group "Free The Pirate Bay", taking a highly publicised stand in favour of the controversial founders of the popular file sharing site ahead of their trial for copyright violations.
He is also a member of the Moderate Party's youth league Muf, an organisation which supports the de-criminalisation of file-sharing for private use.
Despite the press attention and possible PR value of having recruiting the PM's son, McDonald's Sweden has played down the significance of the appointment.
"It doesn't matter who you are or what you are called. He is a team member and we don't comment on these things," said Frida Berg at McDonald's Sweden to Nyheter24.
A little work will be fun! Feels really good," Gustaf, the eldest son to the PM and his wife Filippa Reinfeldt, said on his Twitter feed.
The junior Reinfeldt continued to confirm that he is to ply his trade at the Kungsgatan branch of the global fast-food chain, offering Stockholmers the chance to be served by a member of one of the most well-known families in Swedish society.
"Drop by and have a hamburger," he urged one of his Twitter followers.
Tuesday's announcement of his impending McDonald's employment is not the first time that Gustaf Reinfeldt's online activities have thrust him into the public eye.
In February 2009, he joined a Facebook group "Free The Pirate Bay", taking a highly publicised stand in favour of the controversial founders of the popular file sharing site ahead of their trial for copyright violations.
He is also a member of the Moderate Party's youth league Muf, an organisation which supports the de-criminalisation of file-sharing for private use.
Despite the press attention and possible PR value of having recruiting the PM's son, McDonald's Sweden has played down the significance of the appointment.
"It doesn't matter who you are or what you are called. He is a team member and we don't comment on these things," said Frida Berg at McDonald's Sweden to Nyheter24.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The federal government on Wednesday sought to dismiss a lawsuit by a group seeking a constitutional challenge of Canada's law that makes it illegal to assist a suicide.
VANCOUVER — The federal government on Wednesday sought to dismiss a lawsuit by a group seeking a constitutional challenge of Canada's law that makes it illegal to assist a suicide.
The New Westminster, B.C.-based Farewell Foundation and five representative plaintiffs claim the law, which carries a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison, violates their right to end their lives with dignity in the future.
Donnaree Nygard, the lawyer representing the federal attorney general, argued that the plaintiffs cannot come before the court on a hypothetical situation.
"The plaintiffs have no private interest standing of their own," Nygard told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith.
If the plaintiffs were charged with assisting a suicide, they would have standing to argue a constitutional challenge, she said.
Nygard added the plaintiffs have failed to provide a factual foundation to show they are sufficiently affected or prejudiced by the assisted suicide law.
The Farewell Foundation filed its legal action after it applied to the registrar of companies in B.C. to become a non-profit society.
But its application was rejected because its stated purpose is to assist people to commit suicide.
The foundation launched an appeal of that decision, which was heard a day earlier by Justice Smith.
At the same time, the foundation filed a civil lawsuit against the federal government, claiming the law violates the Charter rights of its members.
Some of Farewell Foundation's 117 members have a terminal illness.
No matter what Smith rules, one side is expected to appeal and the case will likely end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The top appeal court ruled in a split decision in 1993 to uphold the law making it illegal to assist a person to commit suicide.
That case involved a B.C. woman, Sue Rodriguez, who was terminally ill and eventually ended her life.
Opinion polls in recent years have found the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia in certain circumstances.
Since the Rodriguez case, a number of countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands, have passed legislation to allow assisted suicide.
Washington State and Oregon have also passed legislation to allow assisted suicide.
Farewell Foundation has proposed adopting a Swiss model of assisted suicide in order to protect the vulnerable, provide procedural safeguards and allow people to make informed choices.
Lawyer Jason Gratl, representing the Farewell Foundation, told the judge that assisted suicide is already taking place in Canada.
"It's clandestine, secretive, it's not transparent or accountable," he argued in court.
"The Farewell Foundation hopes to rectify this situation," he added.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has also launched a legal challenge of the assisted suicide law, taking the position that a person deciding to end his or her life should be assisted by a doctor.
The Farewell Foundation wants to provide a place, called Farewell House, where a person can go to make an informed decision to end their life.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Federal+government+seeks+dismiss+challenge+assisted+suicide/5200869/story.html#ixzz1U2ZGp9sZ
The New Westminster, B.C.-based Farewell Foundation and five representative plaintiffs claim the law, which carries a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison, violates their right to end their lives with dignity in the future.
Donnaree Nygard, the lawyer representing the federal attorney general, argued that the plaintiffs cannot come before the court on a hypothetical situation.
"The plaintiffs have no private interest standing of their own," Nygard told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lynn Smith.
If the plaintiffs were charged with assisting a suicide, they would have standing to argue a constitutional challenge, she said.
Nygard added the plaintiffs have failed to provide a factual foundation to show they are sufficiently affected or prejudiced by the assisted suicide law.
The Farewell Foundation filed its legal action after it applied to the registrar of companies in B.C. to become a non-profit society.
But its application was rejected because its stated purpose is to assist people to commit suicide.
The foundation launched an appeal of that decision, which was heard a day earlier by Justice Smith.
At the same time, the foundation filed a civil lawsuit against the federal government, claiming the law violates the Charter rights of its members.
Some of Farewell Foundation's 117 members have a terminal illness.
No matter what Smith rules, one side is expected to appeal and the case will likely end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The top appeal court ruled in a split decision in 1993 to uphold the law making it illegal to assist a person to commit suicide.
That case involved a B.C. woman, Sue Rodriguez, who was terminally ill and eventually ended her life.
Opinion polls in recent years have found the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia in certain circumstances.
Since the Rodriguez case, a number of countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands, have passed legislation to allow assisted suicide.
Washington State and Oregon have also passed legislation to allow assisted suicide.
Farewell Foundation has proposed adopting a Swiss model of assisted suicide in order to protect the vulnerable, provide procedural safeguards and allow people to make informed choices.
Lawyer Jason Gratl, representing the Farewell Foundation, told the judge that assisted suicide is already taking place in Canada.
"It's clandestine, secretive, it's not transparent or accountable," he argued in court.
"The Farewell Foundation hopes to rectify this situation," he added.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has also launched a legal challenge of the assisted suicide law, taking the position that a person deciding to end his or her life should be assisted by a doctor.
The Farewell Foundation wants to provide a place, called Farewell House, where a person can go to make an informed decision to end their life.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Federal+government+seeks+dismiss+challenge+assisted+suicide/5200869/story.html#ixzz1U2ZGp9sZ
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
support the CBC
Don Tapscott
I recently attended the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual gathering of the American intelligentsia and powerful to discuss global issues. I watched a session where Chrystia Freeland, a Canadian, was interviewing Bob Rubin, former secretary of the U.S. treasury and now chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Rubin gave a brilliant description of the deep and seemingly intractable problems in the United States. The country is so divided it is increasingly difficult if not impossible to get anything done. The most recent example is the current fiasco on raising the debt ceiling.
Freeland, an adept journalist, asked Rubin if he ever thought about the role a strong public broadcaster could play in the United States. She referenced the role of the CBC in Canada, not in bringing the country together, but by creating a platform whereby various points of view are expressed and reasonable discussions could occur.
The interview became one of Rubin interviewing Freeland on how the CBC works in Canada and its effects on the country. Did just a tiny elite listen to and watch it or was it broadly accessed by the general population from different communities within the country? They discussed the difference between the CBC and its impact compared with the U.S.’s National Public Radio, which is listened to by a much smaller and narrower cross-section of the population. At the end, Rubin concluded that a strong public broadcaster like the CBC could be a simple yet powerful initiative that could help United States get out of its self-destructive funk.
It reminded me once again how important the CBC is to the country, and arguably never more important than today with the arrival of digital media. There is a fragmentation of all media, and we’ve gone from mass media to what I call “molecular media.” One upshot is that increasingly any Canadian can be awash in any particular narrow point of view. They can listen to, read or watch the views they support or hold. That means there is a real danger of balkanizing our society — we all may end up in self-reinforcing echo-chambers where all we hear is our own point of view.
In the United States, many conservatives seek out right-wing news organizations such as Fox News, RushLimbaugh.com or the Wall Street Journal. Similarly, Democrats increasingly turn to centre and left-of-centre news organizations such as the Huffington Post and MSNBC. More and more news organizations preach to the converted. Tomer Strolight, president of Torstar Digital, says, “People can now spend their time in a media landscape that gives them comfort. When someone enjoys Fox News, are they being informed or just comforted?”
In 1995 I wrote a book called The Digital Economy, in which I predicted that broadcasting would soon be transformed — it won’t be broad and it won’t be casting. Audiences, especially a new generation of digital natives, expect media delivered on all platforms and they expect it to engage and even be interactive. Transforming from a traditional broadcaster to a national 21st century media company is no small challenge. In fact, it’s one that many media organizations are failing at
To be sure, there are a lot of strong traditional arguments as to why there should be stable funding for the CBC. There is still a role for great broadcasting. CBC/Radio-Canada spends more on Canadian programming than all other conventional broadcasters combined. This gives essential support to Canadian content and the independent production sector that creates it. The result is diverse voices in the media landscape, and distinctive programming not available from any other broadcaster.
But broadcasting itself is changing as prime time becomes any time. There are 1.6 million podcasts downloaded per week from Radio One. So the listener becomes the “programmer.” I look at what CBC Radio does with a program like Q. It is a radio program, a television station through online TV, a Twitter initiative and a community. It engages the country. Another excellent program is Spark.
I was recently interviewed by Peter Mansbridge on Mansbridge One on One. It triggered tremendous traffic on my Twitter account, not just from within the CBC but from all over the world — more so than any other interview I’ve had in recent years. It reminded me of the power of our uniquely Canadian platform and asset.
This is a time of great opportunity where the CBC can be enormously transformative and influential. Courtesy of the Internet, it is now available almost anywhere on Earth. The CBC deserves support for all the traditional reasons. But the digital revolution introduces a profound new imperative. The CBC needs new resources if it is going to reinvent itself for the digital age. A strong 21st century CBC is essential to help us achieve our proper leadership role in the world.
Don Tapscott is the author of 14 books about new technologies in business and society, most recently, with Anthony D. Williams, Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. Twitter@dtapscott.
I recently attended the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual gathering of the American intelligentsia and powerful to discuss global issues. I watched a session where Chrystia Freeland, a Canadian, was interviewing Bob Rubin, former secretary of the U.S. treasury and now chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Rubin gave a brilliant description of the deep and seemingly intractable problems in the United States. The country is so divided it is increasingly difficult if not impossible to get anything done. The most recent example is the current fiasco on raising the debt ceiling.
Freeland, an adept journalist, asked Rubin if he ever thought about the role a strong public broadcaster could play in the United States. She referenced the role of the CBC in Canada, not in bringing the country together, but by creating a platform whereby various points of view are expressed and reasonable discussions could occur.
The interview became one of Rubin interviewing Freeland on how the CBC works in Canada and its effects on the country. Did just a tiny elite listen to and watch it or was it broadly accessed by the general population from different communities within the country? They discussed the difference between the CBC and its impact compared with the U.S.’s National Public Radio, which is listened to by a much smaller and narrower cross-section of the population. At the end, Rubin concluded that a strong public broadcaster like the CBC could be a simple yet powerful initiative that could help United States get out of its self-destructive funk.
It reminded me once again how important the CBC is to the country, and arguably never more important than today with the arrival of digital media. There is a fragmentation of all media, and we’ve gone from mass media to what I call “molecular media.” One upshot is that increasingly any Canadian can be awash in any particular narrow point of view. They can listen to, read or watch the views they support or hold. That means there is a real danger of balkanizing our society — we all may end up in self-reinforcing echo-chambers where all we hear is our own point of view.
In the United States, many conservatives seek out right-wing news organizations such as Fox News, RushLimbaugh.com or the Wall Street Journal. Similarly, Democrats increasingly turn to centre and left-of-centre news organizations such as the Huffington Post and MSNBC. More and more news organizations preach to the converted. Tomer Strolight, president of Torstar Digital, says, “People can now spend their time in a media landscape that gives them comfort. When someone enjoys Fox News, are they being informed or just comforted?”
In 1995 I wrote a book called The Digital Economy, in which I predicted that broadcasting would soon be transformed — it won’t be broad and it won’t be casting. Audiences, especially a new generation of digital natives, expect media delivered on all platforms and they expect it to engage and even be interactive. Transforming from a traditional broadcaster to a national 21st century media company is no small challenge. In fact, it’s one that many media organizations are failing at
To be sure, there are a lot of strong traditional arguments as to why there should be stable funding for the CBC. There is still a role for great broadcasting. CBC/Radio-Canada spends more on Canadian programming than all other conventional broadcasters combined. This gives essential support to Canadian content and the independent production sector that creates it. The result is diverse voices in the media landscape, and distinctive programming not available from any other broadcaster.
But broadcasting itself is changing as prime time becomes any time. There are 1.6 million podcasts downloaded per week from Radio One. So the listener becomes the “programmer.” I look at what CBC Radio does with a program like Q. It is a radio program, a television station through online TV, a Twitter initiative and a community. It engages the country. Another excellent program is Spark.
I was recently interviewed by Peter Mansbridge on Mansbridge One on One. It triggered tremendous traffic on my Twitter account, not just from within the CBC but from all over the world — more so than any other interview I’ve had in recent years. It reminded me of the power of our uniquely Canadian platform and asset.
This is a time of great opportunity where the CBC can be enormously transformative and influential. Courtesy of the Internet, it is now available almost anywhere on Earth. The CBC deserves support for all the traditional reasons. But the digital revolution introduces a profound new imperative. The CBC needs new resources if it is going to reinvent itself for the digital age. A strong 21st century CBC is essential to help us achieve our proper leadership role in the world.
Don Tapscott is the author of 14 books about new technologies in business and society, most recently, with Anthony D. Williams, Macrowikinomics: Rebooting Business and the World. Twitter@dtapscott.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Canada's spy agency flatly denies it practises a controversial anti-terrorism tactic that got it a firm knuckle-rapping from a federal watchdog.
OTTAWA — Canada's spy agency flatly denies it practises a controversial anti-terrorism tactic that got it a firm knuckle-rapping from a federal watchdog.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service's insistence that it does not employ the technique known as disruption is squarely at odds with the findings of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which keeps an eye on CSIS.
The committee has recommended CSIS seek ministerial guidance on disruption -- letting suspected terrorists know they are under investigation with the aim -- or side-effect -- of prompting them to drop their plans.
It also called on the spy service to develop formal guidelines regarding its use of the tactic.
Newly declassified records only underscore the differences.
The review committee, which reports to Parliament, says the spy service "expressly set out to disrupt" a threat to Canada and did not inform the public safety minister it was doing so.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service's insistence that it does not employ the technique known as disruption is squarely at odds with the findings of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which keeps an eye on CSIS.
The committee has recommended CSIS seek ministerial guidance on disruption -- letting suspected terrorists know they are under investigation with the aim -- or side-effect -- of prompting them to drop their plans.
It also called on the spy service to develop formal guidelines regarding its use of the tactic.
Newly declassified records only underscore the differences.
The review committee, which reports to Parliament, says the spy service "expressly set out to disrupt" a threat to Canada and did not inform the public safety minister it was doing so.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The French BEA's latest interim report on its investigation into the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447 indicated that the pilots were inadequately trained and failed to properly identify a stall situation or react promptly to it.
The French BEA's latest interim report on its investigation into the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447 indicated that the pilots were inadequately trained and failed to properly identify a stall situation or react promptly to it.
BEA said in May that the Airbus A330-200 took fewer than four minutes to fall from approximately 38,000 ft. into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean following the disengagement of the autopilot (ATW Daily News, May 30). It released a detailed report Friday on the cockpit crew's actions in the moments leading up the crash, based on an analysis of the cockpit voice and flight data recorders recovered in the spring. The report is carefully worded, and BEA emphasized that it does not assess blame, but the portrait painted of the pilots is not positive—and was rejected by AF.
The A330 crashed while en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris Charles de Gaulle on June 1, 2009, killing all 228 passengers and crew. BEA reiterated that a key factor in the crash was the inconsistent speed measurements from the aircraft's pitot probes.
It revealed the flight captain was "resting" when the emergency situation arose; operating the flight were two copilots who engaged in "no explicit task-sharing," BEA said. According to the accidents investigation bureau, even though the pilots "identified and announced the loss of the speed indications, neither of the two copilots called the procedure 'unreliable IAS' [indicated airspeed]. The copilots had received no high altitude training for the 'unreliable IAS' procedure and manual aircraft handling. No standard callouts regarding the differences in pitch attitude and vertical speed were made. There is no CRM [crew resource management] training for a crew made up of two copilots in a situation with a relief captain."
Even though a stall warning alarm was triggered, "neither of the pilots made any reference to the stall warning" and "neither of the pilots formally identified the stall situation," BEA stated. At one point, it noted, the stall warning "was triggered continuously for 54 seconds."
BEA recommended that "regulatory authorities re-examine the content of [air transport pilot] training and check programs, and in particular make mandatory the creation of regular specific exercises aimed at manual airplane handling [including] approach to and recovery from stall, including at high altitude."
In its response to BEA's findings, AF said that a "combination of multiple improbable factors led to the disaster" and insisted the flight crew "comprising both first officers and the captain showed an unfailing professional attitude, remaining committed to their task to the very end … At this stage, there is no reason to question the crew's technical skills … It is important to understand whether the technical environment, systems and alarms hindered the crew's understanding of the situation."
.
BEA said in May that the Airbus A330-200 took fewer than four minutes to fall from approximately 38,000 ft. into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean following the disengagement of the autopilot (ATW Daily News, May 30). It released a detailed report Friday on the cockpit crew's actions in the moments leading up the crash, based on an analysis of the cockpit voice and flight data recorders recovered in the spring. The report is carefully worded, and BEA emphasized that it does not assess blame, but the portrait painted of the pilots is not positive—and was rejected by AF.
The A330 crashed while en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris Charles de Gaulle on June 1, 2009, killing all 228 passengers and crew. BEA reiterated that a key factor in the crash was the inconsistent speed measurements from the aircraft's pitot probes.
It revealed the flight captain was "resting" when the emergency situation arose; operating the flight were two copilots who engaged in "no explicit task-sharing," BEA said. According to the accidents investigation bureau, even though the pilots "identified and announced the loss of the speed indications, neither of the two copilots called the procedure 'unreliable IAS' [indicated airspeed]. The copilots had received no high altitude training for the 'unreliable IAS' procedure and manual aircraft handling. No standard callouts regarding the differences in pitch attitude and vertical speed were made. There is no CRM [crew resource management] training for a crew made up of two copilots in a situation with a relief captain."
Even though a stall warning alarm was triggered, "neither of the pilots made any reference to the stall warning" and "neither of the pilots formally identified the stall situation," BEA stated. At one point, it noted, the stall warning "was triggered continuously for 54 seconds."
BEA recommended that "regulatory authorities re-examine the content of [air transport pilot] training and check programs, and in particular make mandatory the creation of regular specific exercises aimed at manual airplane handling [including] approach to and recovery from stall, including at high altitude."
In its response to BEA's findings, AF said that a "combination of multiple improbable factors led to the disaster" and insisted the flight crew "comprising both first officers and the captain showed an unfailing professional attitude, remaining committed to their task to the very end … At this stage, there is no reason to question the crew's technical skills … It is important to understand whether the technical environment, systems and alarms hindered the crew's understanding of the situation."
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)