Uplinker :
We have since learned - if it is true - that the Captain was ill or not properly rested.
Ill? I never saw it mentioned before , not properly rested , yes this is now a fact ,but according the Judiciary report , fatigue is only a secondary contributory factor .
What the judiciary report mentions is the lack of response to 8 previous similar IAS/pitot incidents ( 5 of which in AF) and that 78% of ASR filed by crews never received an answer. ( only 22% were answered by the company , and most of those only on the crew explicit request ) , It also mentions the fact that AF did not qualify the STALL recovery procedure as a memory item, that no training was given to doubtful IAS in high altitude ( only at low alt, where there 12,5 degr pitch is mentioned in the recovery procedure) , and that when converting from A320 to A330, unreliable IAS is not part of the conversion training .
The choice of the Capt not to select the most experienced FO as PF when taking his rest is also mentioned as a lack of directive by AF to its crew , which , according the report. gives complete freedom to the Capt to determine the functions .
What is not clear to me, is if these facts raised by the judiciary are purely specific to AF or if they are common practices in other large airlines, and if it just the judges looking for people to prosecute to satisfy the families ..