Implications of AF447 lawsuit
It has been disclosed (see another thread) that prosecutors in France have brought a lawsuit against Air France in the matter of AF447's mid-Atlantic crash. I haven't seen any real details, but it seems that:
1. The lawsuit is not being brought against Airbus, the manufacturer.
2. The regulator EASA is not participating as a plaintiff in this lawsuit.
3. Since the lawsuit is being brought by the public prosecutor, it is a criminal matter (people go to jail), as opposed to a civil matter (people pay a fine).
I am guessing that the principal grounds of the lawsuit are that Air France did not train its pilots well enough. This has interesting implications both for pilot training in general and for the return of the MAX to service.
1. It's a good bet that AIr France's training meets all the rules set out by the EASA regarding hours in the simulator and hours in the classroom. It's another good bet that the syllabus of Air France's training program is comparable to those of all other major airlines. Furthermore, it's likely that Airbus knew enough about Air France`s training program to have complained about any shortcoming, but didn't. What, then, should Air France have done? Did it not do enough basic training? More hours in the sim? Some hours in the air?
2. If Air France should have given special training to deal with peculiarities of the sidestick and, in particular, the absence of any annunciator to show each pilot what theother was doing, then part of the fault would lie with Airbus. Since Airbus is not a defendant, the sidestick must not be an issue.
3. If a 4,000-hour Air France co-pilot isn't good enough, then a 300-hour Ethiopian co-pilot doesn't have a prayer.
4. What would the French prosecutor say about Ethiopian Airlines, who failed to train their pilots to deal with an MCAS failure? Boeing, who didn't tell anybody about MCAS, would have to bear a lot of the blame.
5. All airlines should be shocked by this lawsuit. They have relied on the rules set by the regulators. They have set up their training programs in much the same way, and have done so for decades. What is the new standard going to be?
6. All regulators should also be shocked by this lawsuit. If a major airline failed to the point of criminality despite meeting the rules, then there need to be some new
rules. It is the regulators' job to produce these new rules.
Question: So, why this lawsuit now? The answer rests on realizing how the world works. (Please, moderators, do not delete this post because I say the following, which is simply how the world works.) The French prosecutors did not bring this lawsuit without the knowledge of EASA.
Answer #1: This lawsuit ties in very nicely with the ICAO talks going on in Montreal. Regulators from around the world are trying to figure out how to re-define the minimum training standards for pilots. It is well known that the U.S. favours the traditional total-hour approach and that many other countries, including Europe, favour a different approach, in which fewer hours are accepted in exchange for other tests based on quality or diversity of those hours. This lawsuit goes right to the heart of the matter, that the number of hours does not necessarily correspond with ability to perform.
Answer #2: The lawsuit also buttresses EASA if it takes a hard line in the negotiations about returning the MAX to service. In the face of this lawsuit, it is going to be
awfully hard for Boeing to argue that no real training is needed.
YYZjim