← Back to Squawk list
  • 27

Airbus, Air France acquitted over 2009 Rio-Paris crash

Submitted
PARIS -- A French court on Monday acquitted Airbus and Air France of manslaughter charges over the 2009 crash of Flight 447 from Rio to Paris, prompting an outpouring of anguish from people whose loved ones were killed in a disaster that led to lasting changes in aircraft safety measures. Some erupted in sobs, others listened in stunned silence as the presiding judge read out the decision, a devastating defeat for families of the 228 victims, who fought for 13 years to see the case reach court. (abcnews.go.com) More...

Sam Negrete
TrendsetterNews junkiePromoterAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


madrockradio
James Cross 11
Interesting - after all, Airbus had warned AF about the issues and AF was the company who hadn't yet resolved them. Seems like the issue lies with AF maintenance and training, not Airbus

Wonder what the court saw in AF that they got off scott free, too
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Bursk
Randall Bursk 4
Investigation into cause of accident took a lot of time and effort. Changes made by Airbus, training procedures. Our training after the accident included more review (AQP) in the simulator, QRH procedures. Fly Pitch and Power. We have charts for AOA, recommendations for Power Settings for Configuration and Altitude. Good Flights.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
Hindsight is always 20 20. Sadly a lot of people died in order to get those changes.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
skylane777
John Nichols 1
Sadly, 447 was in jet upset which caused the loss of autopilot. "Pitch and Power" would have quickly caused the A330 to roll over...

Plus, Roll in Alternate Law 2 is Direct, not Demand. PILOT needed everything he could do to calm the PIO that resulted from Law Degrade. (Aileron)

It was not trained, which amounted to homicide on the part of Bus/AF.

The Thales Pitot tubes were known to be defective, There should never have been an UAS/ALT LAW in the first place...

This is in the report.

Which is to say the data is there, the conclusions are defectuve...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
johntaylor571
John Taylor 4
I've often wondered why there is no automatic control of the pitot tube heaters. Like maybe a thermoswitch or an altitude sensor or even the squat switch. I can't tell you how many pitot tube covers I've seen burned because the pilot forgot to turn the switch off (and the mechanic forgot to check the switch). If it's that easy to forget to turn it off (and to check by ground crew), it must be easy to forget to turn it on for flight. Of course, checklists, checklists. But obviously things get overlooked. And losing your airspeed indication just may cause a problem. Of course, I'm basing my comment on having been a crew chief on an old airframe,the KC-135, so there may be some such device now but it doesn't appear to be if it's still happening. Addendum: I realize there are mechanical failures that cause pitot heat to fail.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
patpylot
patrick baker 4
the airbus seemingly had a mechanical, electrical or some other equipment failure. The aircraft was constructed and sold by Airbus, making them have responsibility for said incident. Except, apparently, in a court of "law?" If Airbus didn't build the fault, the cause of the crash, into the deivered aircraft, then Air France must have incorrectly maintained the crashed jetliner. Nobody left to sue here, so maybe it is an "act of God".... Big guys win in court, little guys not........
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jbermo
jbermo 6
"the airbus seemingly had a mechanical, electrical or some other equipment failure" . . . Yes, a system failure that overwhelmed an inexperienced relief FO. Too bad the experienced Captain arrived too late (from his rest break) to save everyone. He knew what to do.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ThomasFrisch
Thomas Frisch 4
We do not know - and will never know - if the captain knew "what to do". There is little sign from the CVR that he did but he may have been too confused to appreciate the situation and remained so until it was too late to rescue it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 2
OK, no "criminal Wrongdoing", but system ADC failures compounded by a lack of one [simple] cockpit display "Angle-of-Attack" (AOA) indicator. The 2002 report about the pitot icing incidents COULD HAVE resulted in this display being provided and retrofitted in affected aircraft, my understanding it was never offered (A&Ps familiar with Airbus please chime in).

The reason I am especially interested in this case, was the exact same thing happened to me in a Beechjet in the lee of a supercell @ 410, we were able to descend safely and not overspeed the aircraft with the use of the AOA indicator provided in that aircraft. We also trained for that condition in the sim, as Beechjets of earlier vintages had experienced the pitot icing and complete loss of inputs to the ADC. Of course the BJ is not a FBW aircraft with flight input control laws that I have not been exposed to, so again, I defer to Airbus pilots to provide more detail.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
skylane777
John Nichols 1
Precisely...excellent ...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ThomasFrisch
Thomas Frisch 7
The "fault" - as you call it - was not the cause of the crash. The plane crashed because the pilots were not able to handle the situation, probably due to inadequate training. Read "Understanding Air France 447" by Bill Palmer (2013; ISBN 978-0-9897857-2-3). A good book on the accident in French is Jean-Pierre Otelli: Erreurs de pilotage, Tome 5 (2011; Ed. Altipresse).
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ColinSeftel
Colin Seftel 2
When pilots, airlines and manufacturers are exposed to criminal sanctions after a crash, this can seriously interfere with investigating the causes, because in most jurisdictions suspects and witnesses have the right not to incriminate themselves. In my opinion, the only offense that must be criminally charged is for dishonesty during the course of the investigation.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
renb
Ren Babcock 2
Criminal charges typically includes intent, which had to be hard to prove. Negligence is an entirely other element. Was it a design issue (Airbus), manufacturing issue (Airbus and/or
vendor), software issue (Airbus and/or vendor), maintenance issue (AF), training issue (AF) or something else. It's going to be a whole bunch of finger pointing in this one and whoever loses might be the one that screams the least in court. The fact we are 13 years into this says something.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
renb
Ren Babcock 2
Criminal charges typically includes intent, which had to be hard to prove. Negligence is an entirely other element. Was it a design issue (Airbus), manufacturing issue (Airbus and/or
vendor), software issue (Airbus and/or vendor), maintenance issue (AF), training issue (AF) or something else. It's going to be a whole bunch of finger pointing in this one and whoever loses might be the one that screams the least in court. The fact we are 14 years into this says something.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
EMK69
EMK69 2
To you, young pilots always remember "it will always be pilot error" before big brother's shoulders take any blame. RIP to the passengers but more importantly RIP to the flight crew your name will be drug thru the mud before this is over.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Mike101361
Lloyd Sharp 1
Basic
Pitch + Power = Performance
Formula would have saved that jet
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mjaich
Melan Jaich 1
The plane's pitot tubes were improperly designed and the software for the side controllers allowed for contradictory inputs. BUT, its still "pilot error'. And they wonder whey no one believes the FAA or NTSA anymore; much like France.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
avionik99
avionik99 -5
French court acquitted French airline and Airbus.......Yeah that was impartial and fair......NOT!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
RHLussier
Richard Lussier 10
Under French «judiciary order (l'ordre judiciaire)» law plaintiffs can petition a public prosecutor to bring a case, such as this one, that contains both criminal as well a civil complaints. The test for murder (manslaughter in this case) is not dissimilar to US law, and the ruling in this phase was there wasn't enough evidence to meet the test (similar to the US "reasonable doubt" test with motive, intent, malice, opportunity, etc. satisfied). However the judge ruled that there was enough evidence (similar to the US "preponderance of evidence" test in civil cases) to conclude civil liability. The next phase is to calculate the damages due to the plaintiffs. So this isn't finished yet. Although the plaintiffs don't get a criminal prosecution they sought, they will still have the two defendants held liable in the civil action. No big conspiracy here.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
gewy
gewy -2
I agree with you. All judgements in the world should be made by courts from USA!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
cordery
Alan Cordery 5
You are being sarcastic I am sure.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
johntaylor571
John Taylor 0
The French are known to be extremely nationalistic and their reputation on the line for a national airline and majority French airplane might cause a little bias. France puts American "white nationalist extremists" to shame with their nationalism.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bentwing60
bentwing60 -7
I'd bet they will sock the plaintiffs for the court costs to add insult to injury! Too bad the 'short mac.' wasn't on that flight and I suspect a majority of the "Marine Le Pen" yellow vests would concur.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss