Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Probably because it wasn't ready yet. We're talking a significant amount of testing before they flight-test it, even more before it gets 'released into the wild'.
Airbus said in 2004 that they HAD developed it, Dozy, not that they WERE developing it.
In any case, for the reasons I explained, there isn't much point in speculating on why they didn't issue an SB. The legal facts are that they said in 2004, in response to a Safety Recommendation, that they were going to; and then didn't. It will eventually be up to the court to decide whether, in its opinion, if they had done so, it might have prevented, or reduced the severity of, the Congonhas accident.
The court proceedings that follow all and any air crashes take a completely different path to that of the initial investigation. But it's fair to say that they almost always end up determining a percentage split of the liability between the various parties - usually including (but not necessarily limited to) the airline, the manufacturer, and the airport operator.
They also take many years. As one example, relative claims from the 'American 587 Heavy' accident (the A300 that crashed in Queen's in 2001) are currently being settled on a 50/50 basis by Airbus and American Airlines. Once all the claims have been settled, Airbus and American will presumably negotiate (or go to court themselves) to settle which of them bears what percentage of the total compensation cost.
If I had to bet, right now, on the likely final determination of liability for the Congonhas accident, I'd say that it's virtually certain to be shared between the airport authority, the airline, and the manufacturer. Wouldn't care to bet on what percentage split the court determines between them, though.