Turbine D
I would argue that what we are doing is very definitely not 'hindsight'. To my mind the question with hindsight is 'could the actions taken in the past have been avoided with the knowledge available at the time?' If the answer is yes then the discussion is 'looking back' not hindsight. If the answer is no then the discussion is hindsight.
Leaving aside the issue of Air France and it's part in this accident if we ask whether the crew could have avoided the accident using knowledge that they could have reasonably expected to possess or have access to we reach an answer of yes they could. Why they didn't is part of finding out why the accident happened. A lack of any evidence that the correct procedures were followed leads one to think that things went very badly wrong but this is not hindsight. As I understand Airline training and practice it is based on following these and thus one would expect such practices and procedures to be followed in all cases. Once again this isn't hindsight but just an expectation that the already designed processes will be followed.
One can say that Air France should have expedited the replacement of the pitot tubes and this accident wouldn't have happened. This would be hindsight given that non of the incidents had led to anything resembling AF447. A situation existed which needed change but one could argue that this accident could not have been anticipated. However, if we were to say that the crew should have responded to this situation in a different way this is not hindsight. This is just an expectation based on a reasonable supposition that the crew was properly trained and conversant with the procedures for successfully operating a large transport aircraft. We trust airline professionals to reach a certain standard and ability. We may not expect them to be supermen/women but we do expect a certain level and the vast majority to conform to our expectations.
OC