Originally Posted by
ph-sbe
A taxi company is not responsible for a driver's ability to drive; once the driver presents a valid, government issued driver's license in the appropriate class, the company should be able to safely assume that the driver has had the proper training and driver's test. The same is true here.
Not quite, IMO. A taxi company would not
usually be responsible,
however:
IF the taxi manufacturer notified the operator that they were getting a far higher than expected rate of taxi speedo failures for taxis with speedo model A in bad weather at motorway speeds, speedo failure affects the power steering which makes the vehicle a bit skittish and
might cause a crash if the driver isn't up to it, and the manufacturer recommends replacing model A speedo with model B which is designed perform better...
THEN liability
might fall on the taxi operator depending on how they responded to that notice
That appears to be what is happening in this case, and is also why this is very different to 737 MAX (despite what SNPL says) - this is not about general pilot competency or training it is about response to the specific risk identified prior to the event and notified by Airbus (in contrast, it appears that if Boeing did identify a risk it chose not to inform operators or pilots).
The taxi operator might, hypothetically, do some or all of the following:
(1) Tells taxi mfr to get stuffed on replacing speedos unless it builds a new adverse weather test rig and proves that model Bs are better than model As (note that model C from another parts mfr is already known to be better)
(2) Does a proper assessment of the increased risk and concludes there is no cause for concern and it's drivers will be able to handle the problem (not the same as
assuming they will because they have the correct licence, since the licence training was designed for risk levels which have just been advised to be incorrect)
(3) Issues a warning to their drivers notifying the risk and specifying the correct handling procedures
(4) Checks their drivers' proficiency in handling this situation by testing a random sample in recurrent training/checks, and finds no problems
(5) Ensures all their drivers are tested on this scenario in recurrent training/checks
The question is what would be a negligent response, falling below the standard expected of a reasonable operator. My vaguely educated guess is that any combination involving (4) or (5) would be a solid defence, anything involving (2) or (3) would be less solid defence, actually doing nothing
might be ok, but doing (1) and only (1) would have your lawyer shaking their head - because I think (1)
may be seen as accepting liability for the notified risk, and "only (1)" means then doing nothing to mitigate it...
Based on many reports I have read, AF actually did (1), question then becomes what else did they do. If the answer is nothing, then I think they have a problem, and I have thought that for several years now - none of this is surprising me, the wheels of French justice turn very slowly, but that isn't surprising either.