Hi,
JD_EE
jcjeant, it may be appropriate to define how you are using fault.
If the PF caused the crash it does not automatically follow that "He is at fault."
Why did he do what he did? If we isolate a training deficiency, a software deficiency, or some other deficiency then while the PF may have caused it he is not at fault for it.
Methink you don't read this or forget it when answered
But I'm sure it will be not so straight ... and certainly it will be recommendations about the pilots and airline (training SOP .. etc...) and recommendations for the constructor(s) and recommendations for the regulators
Seem's to me a usual and honest scenario and it will be no different for the AF447 case.
So .. it will be also many food for the court of justice
Nobody will go out white from this accident.
Do you agree ?