Originally Posted by
Bergerie1
I think the reasons for this accident have been flogged to death. I doubt very much that this trial will prove anything. Legal processes do not usually enhance flight safety.
I disagree with this statement completely. I stand with the victim’s families on having a impartial judge study it. Its come late though.
Where was EASA on the probe issues?
There are things that need to change, a court case is necessary, providing its done right.
It was a court case and judge that did a lot to improve flight safety in Canada affecting ICAO regulations on de icing procedures. Dryden 1989 F-28. A good judge and inquiry can improve flight safety
https://www.icao.int/safety/airnavig...%20Factors.pdf
Airbus still has too much influence on EASA. This hasnt changed since EASA needs to be more objective and independent, and be purer in flight safety, I hope the trial addresses this.
Prior to Air France there was no annual jet upset training in Europe EASA but at the FAA yes. Why?
Airbus was training pilots incorrectly that the aircraft couldnt be stalled and changed the QRH after AF447. The EASA/Airbus/AF closeness needs addressing still.