Gentlemen I think you are failing to see the wood from the trees.
The aircraft was equipped with substandard parts which were inadequately tested, when this was realised there should have been a mandatory replacement program within a definite time scale.
Down to manufacturers and the authorities.
Air France were also negligent and it took not only the accident but pilot strike action to get them replaced.
Air France carried out a series of simulator tests with similar conditions to the RIO flight, most of the crews crashed.
Those that didn't had a member who flew small aircraft in his spare time.
To AF credit they recruited a committee to look at their operation that included two Anglo-Saxons.
One ex military and the second one whose initial flying course was of two years duration, including an aerobatics test and whose employee gave instructors courses to young first officers to augment their handling abilities.
Whilst there were definite errors on the part of the crew notably the captain leaving the flight deck during ITCZ transit - they were not sufficiently trained to deal with a situation which, before the advent of glass cockpits, was extremely rare.
They were not taught correct pitch power flying - PNF should not have had to delve into a checklist - it should be known by heart.
Which poses a question about the BEA, DGAC and EADS;
Since the inauguration of the airbus we have had a series of accidents involving top Air France and Airbus personnel. Halbesheim, Strasburg, Gulf de Lion, Etihad at Toulouse as well as 447 to name a few (plus the construction software design fiasco between the french and the germans), If EADS can get the design philosophy / human interface so wrong that the one group of pilots that should not be crashing them does then what chance do mere mortals in the third world have????
(this was also demonstrated by a Russian pilot's son!)
As we all know EADS are responsible for the checklists, as are the DGAC in overseeing the AOC holder - so to purely blame Air France and it's pilots is a mistake.
I have known collusion in four western aviation authorities, all carried out in THE NATIONAL INTEREST - it is about time that they exercised their powers in the interest of the passengers and crews.
The industry has had two crew operation forced upon them - I believe it is intrinsically unsafe.( as demonstrated here when PNF was in the checklists and not monitoring PF).
Training has continually evolved along with sophisticated electronics to the detriment of handling skills - this needs to be addressed.
In the good old days most pilots could cope with multiple failures and fly the aeroplane - is the cost of ensuring adequate flying currency too expensive with respect to the cost of a hull loss?