AirDisaster.Com: Investigations: Air France 296
OEB 19/1 (May 1988): Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude. This means that it was already known before the accident that the engines sometimes did not respond normally to the pilot's commands on the Airbus A320. However Air France did not inform their pilots about this anomaly. After the Habsheim accident, the engines have been modified (OEB 19/2, August 1988). OEB 06/2 (May 1988): Baro-Setting Cross Check. It stated that the current design for barometric altitude indication on the Airbus A320 did not comply with airworthiness. This could be a hint why the aircraft was as low as 30 ft (9 m) above the runway whereas Asseline affirms that the altimeter indicated 100 ft (30 m). These OEBs were sent to the company (Air France), but they had not been handed to the pilots. In fact both the engines and the altimetric system have been modified after the crash, which indicates that they did not function correctly at that time, but Airbus Industries was not held responsible of anything by the French Court, the whole responsibility was given to the pilots and to the organizers of the airshow.
However, with all this, (and despite the 'black box swapping' that is alleged/proven to have happened) I would still uphold the verdict of guilty and expect the court to do the same in this case. This is because the duty of appellate courts is to 1) review for 'clear error' and 2)
uphold the verdict of the lower court wherever possiblehow? well, lets say the lower judge convicts, saying 'the pilot is clearly at fault because he didnt apply the thrust in time: GUILTY'
but evidence in the case indicates that he DID apply thrust. HOWEVER there is also evidence that the pilot was negligently too low, DID NOT HAVE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AS REQUIRED (thought he was at 100 ft, whereas ears and a look out the window would have told him otherwise) and thus with that evidence considered would still be held at fault remember: the higher court looks for evidence in the record to support the lower courts ruling.
* We agree with the trial court, whose ruling comes to this court clothed in the presumption of correctness..
* I see that on just about every appellate decision handed down, lol
Doesn't sound like safe decision making. Can't blame the a/c.
Ultimate decision is the pilot's and ultimate responsibility as well. But this does point to a culture of 'safety failure' @ AF and culture that prevented this pilot from speaking up (or not thinking about it enough to have something to say) This is why the fact that (only in America) a pilot can divert an aircraft and kick off a purser seems ultimately important to me for flight safety. If the French pilot had half the balls of that Captain (that would give him approximately 6) he would have said ' surtout pas!' when ordered to do an ultra low speed gear down fly by at as close to stall speed to show off 'stall protection' WTF?? (like, hey man, I got a NEW BULLET PROOF VEST!, C'mon...SHOOT ME!)