@DC-ATE
DIESEL, not DEISEL... absolutely right, thanks for the correction.
Well, I don't know everything, but I know/knew enough to avoid areas such as the one in question by enough margin that I never really had to worry about it. .... This is far from an exact science and the sooner some pilots realize that, the better off we'll all be.
And what makes you think the AF pilots didn't think the same? We really don't know what sort of deviation they chose except that there's no record of them making a request to ATC. But, on a bad night with HF communication that in itself means nothing. Until data proves otherwise it's unfair to suggest that these pilots were using any less diligence than you would have. Remember all the plotted tracks we've seen are assumed, not actual. And, as you say this is far from an exact science, which means that even when you are certain you are making prudent choices there is the chance you may still be wrong, no matter how smart one may be.
One could make the argument that, possibly, the incident might have been avoided if only the aircraft.....had avoided the area completely.
Which area? The entire South Atlantic in the vicinity of the ITCZ as my last taxi driver suggested? Perhaps they should have just stayed in RIO until the weather was better, but then if they did they'd probably still be there wouldn't they? The ITCZ's a fairly continuous phenomena. Without knowing what route they took through the area and where they were relative to what they could see of the weather (visually and/or on the radar) we don't know enough to draw any conclusions as to the wisdom of their choices.
ELAC