Talk:Airbus Industrie Flight 129

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I've marked this page as not citing its sources - although it does link to the report of the crash, the article did not "read" as though the original author had read the report (the reference to Category III approaches did not appear to be written by someone who understood the subject). Consequently, it needs checking and possibly rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.187.185 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 May 2007(UTC)

This article is Incomplete[edit]

I believe this is the flight test crash I read about (probably Aviation Week or some such) back when it happened, and I was struck by the colossal number of blunders which led to this accident. Someone needs to look this up and complete it, but from my best memory, the investigation revealed:

flight crew with a potential language barrier (American pilot, European copilot) (They both spoke English, but this was noted as being capable of making a difference when things don't go right.)
potentially hazardous test (simulated engine-out takeoff, with an extreme center of gravity) scheduled with inadequate briefing and planning, just after the crew was already tired from a previous flight
pilot error (specifically wrong flap setting) caused a condition from which the autopilot could not recover, and pilot reclaimed control too late to recover
killed I believe, at least one Airbus executive, and also airline executive(s). This is what drove me the most crazy; Airbus of course wanted to show off its new plane, but these passengers simply had no business being on board this hazardous test.
general failure to appreciate the degree of hazard of this test (Can anyone spell Apollo 1?)

Can someone help look this up, and fill it in (or correct me if I'm mistaken about it being this crash I read about; I don't think so.) JustinTime55 (talk)

I had a chance to download ref 7 from the article, and I definitely am not mistaken about this being the accident I read about. It verifies my points 2 (inadequate planning and crew fatigue), 3 (pilot errors, multiple) and 5 (unappreciated hazard) above. I'm going to try to find sorces to verify the others. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I believe the recent edits made by Moriori were based on an incomplete understanding of the Accident description source, and were counter-productive. The autopilot was not "changed" (which implies reprogramming) "before taking off for further testing" (implies right before the second takeoff, which would have been impossible.) The Flight International articles cited (and also the March 4, 1995 Aviation Week article cited in the Aviation Safety Network source) make it clear that the specific test objective involved a simulated engine loss at takeoff; that is why the captain "reduced thrust on the engine ... and closed the hydraulic circuit", effectively shutting off the engine. This was called for in the test plan, which also required a deliberate extreme aft center of gravity.

The article also needs an Investigation section, to cover the findings of pilot error, failure to appreciate the risk of the test, and optimistic expectations of the aircraft's performance. The lack of this soft-pedals the error, leading to confusion over the cause, as today's reverted edit by CHRISCAIS shows. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link rot[edit]

Despite the use of WebCite to "archive" some of the electronic Flight International sources, they are gone. How can we fix this? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are dead?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're all working now. It must have been some temporary problem with the WebCite site. Never mind. Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised about that.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italian student pilots were not at the controls[edit]

We have to be careful not to give the false impression that the Italian pilots in Toulouse for a training program were the ones at the controls; they were not, and the source (European parliamentary inquiry) does not say they were. I remember reading in a hardcopy source at the time, that the captain was an American (a Texan, I believe), and the copilot was, I believe a French (?) Airbus pilot. The parliamentary source says that only one of them was licensed for test flight, not both as legally required. We need to find better sources (probably hard copy) to be able to write a findings section fully explaining this accident. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image of aircraft[edit]

I will be adding the aircraft which was involved in the accident onto the infobox. I am awaiting approval to use the image from copyright holder. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to make sure they send permission to wikipedia or commons not to you, refer WP:PERMISSION. MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]