Air Seoul flight RS-101 diverted to Naha in Okinawa, Japan, on September 25th.
The Airbus A321-200 plane heading from Guam to Seoul, South Korea, was diverted after the crew needed to shut down one of the engines.
The plane landed safely. All one hundred and four people aboard remained unharmed.
United Airlines flight UA-818 had to divert and make an emergency landing in Santiago, Chile, on December 25th.
The Boeing 777-200 plane heading from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Houston, Texas, was diverted due to electrical problems.
The plane landed safely. All passengers and crew members remained unharmed.
The pilots of Air France Flight 447 had already lost valid data before the Airbus A330 stalled. Fell for three minutes down into the Atlantic in June of 2009, carrying the 228 people aboard to their death. Fell, with pilots flying blind. Fell, with only erroneous data available. Fell with the warning system squawking confused messages. Yet the Bea report says this was was the pilot’s fault.
We want to know if this investigation will turn out to be deliberate persecution of the pilots instead of legitimate prosecution of Airbus flawed design?
It is no wonder that the families of the victims are crying foul that the report criticizes pilot performance but not the faulty stall alarms.
It is no wonder that pilot associations all over the world are protesting.
It is no wonder that the BEA is being accused of protecting Airbus.
Why would the recommendation to improve the warning system be removed from the report?
Why, if not to protect Airbus, scheming to avoid the legal and financial consequences of the crash?
Pilots say that the stall alarm tends to sound while simultaneously messaging the pilots to ignore the “superfluous” warning. Airbus denies this ever happens.
How valid can the report be if it is being skewed to protect Airbus and blame the pilots? Should the BEA be placed under criminal investigation alongside with Air France and Airbus?
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Javier Bravo Muñoz
What: Aer Lingus Airbus A330-300 en route from Dublin to New York
Where: Shannon
When: Jan 11th 2010
Who: not available
Why: While en route, just over the Atlantic, the flight developed a navigation problem. The crew turned the Airbus around and returned to Dublin where they made a safe landing. Repairs were made or maintenance was completed, apparently; and a little over an hour and a half later, the same plane re-embarked to New York.
Pictured: A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 737-4H6 over Kuala Lumpur – International
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Ian Lim
What: Malaysia Airlines Boeing 737-400, en route from Singapore to Penang
Where: Penang Malaysia
When: Mar 25 2010
Who: 88 passengers and 7 crew
Why: On approach to Penang, the right engine developed vibration. Passengers heard loud noises and saw fire flashing from the engine. The crew shut down the right engine and continued on approach to Penang where they made a safe landing.
JetBlue flight B6-2801 had to reject takeoff from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on January 20th.
The Airbus A321-200 plane was accelerating to takeoff for Los Angeles, California, when the crew received a gear indication and rejected takeoff.
The plane safely returned to the apron. Everyone aboard remained safe.
All Nippon Airways flight NH-469 had to return and make an emergency landing in Tokyo, Japan, on February 19th.
The Boeing 777-300 plane took off for Okinawa, Japan, but had to turn back after the crew needed to shut down one of the engines.
The plane landed safely. All passengers and crew members remained unharmed.
