AF447 Involuntary Manslaughter Trial
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Verdict due April 17, 2023. Now that the burden of making a criminal finding is lifted, one hopes many sacred cows will be profaned.... Airframer, Regulator, Investigator. Now an impossibly incestuous, highly conflicted and untouchable gang, maybe justice will see change. Let's see if AIR, EASA, BEA, and France can be saved the incredible cost of investigating and pardoning themselves...
....par exemplar
....par exemplar
On the verdict, do not expect miracles., the judges will as usual not rock the boat they also are in themselves. For anyone wanting to have good look at this very traditional collusion , I highly recommend the 2021 film "Black Box" ( Boit noire) now avail for streaming. Everything is there, BEA, AF, Airbus, Safran , Thales , the DGCAC and EASA., the names are changed , but they are described in a very tealsitic way. It is a good film as well.
Thread Starter
Just another update - the Correctional Court of Paris has read out its verdict this afternoon, and it's petty much as expected. Neither Airbus nor Air France are liable for ciminal manslaughter in the case. The judges said that, while both had commited clear errors in regard to the fatal flight and that these errors likely contributed to the crash, there was "no sure causal link between those errors and the actual crash". As I'd mentioned above, the French authorities in 2019 had declined to bring charges for precisely that reason. An administrative appeals court later ordered charges to be brought nonwithstanding, and that was how this trial came about. A few weeks ago, the prosecutors themselves said they were unable to make the causal link needed for conviction, and now the court has affirmed that.
It's not impossible that there will be appeals - but I think it's unlikely that the court will allow such in these particular administrative circumstances.
The verdict was - as usual here - read out by the senior judge of the panel (and would have to have been unanimous) - the details will be published "in due course". At that point we will be able to be sure if there was anything introduced as evidence that had not been seen or heard before, though I'm not aware from reports that anything major was added beyond the original BEA enquiry material.
It's not impossible that there will be appeals - but I think it's unlikely that the court will allow such in these particular administrative circumstances.
The verdict was - as usual here - read out by the senior judge of the panel (and would have to have been unanimous) - the details will be published "in due course". At that point we will be able to be sure if there was anything introduced as evidence that had not been seen or heard before, though I'm not aware from reports that anything major was added beyond the original BEA enquiry material.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am waiting to read the full text , but there are radio media reports that the judges condemned both AF and AB to criminal responsibilties, so it is , a bit a expected it is the old typical politically correct judgement :: responsible but not guilty ( responsables mais pas coupables )
Not a good day for the families...
Not a good day for the families...
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From AP :
The three-judge panel ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence of a direct link between decisions by the companies and the crash. The official investigation found that multiple factors contributed to the disaster, including pilot error and the icing over of external sensors called pitot tubes.
“We are sickened. The court is telling us, ‘go on, there’s not a problem here, there’s nothing to see,’” said Daničle Lamy, who lost her son Eric in the crash and heads an association for families of victims.
“For the powerful, impunity reigns. Centuries pass, and nothing changes,” she said. “The families of victims are mortified and in total disarray.”
While the court didn’t find the companies guilty of criminal wrongdoing, the judges said that Airbus and Air France held civil responsibility for the damages caused by the crash, and ordered them to compensate families of victims. It didn’t provide an overall amount, but scheduled hearings in September to work that out.
“We are sickened. The court is telling us, ‘go on, there’s not a problem here, there’s nothing to see,’” said Daničle Lamy, who lost her son Eric in the crash and heads an association for families of victims.
“For the powerful, impunity reigns. Centuries pass, and nothing changes,” she said. “The families of victims are mortified and in total disarray.”
While the court didn’t find the companies guilty of criminal wrongdoing, the judges said that Airbus and Air France held civil responsibility for the damages caused by the crash, and ordered them to compensate families of victims. It didn’t provide an overall amount, but scheduled hearings in September to work that out.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If we only blame the pilots, we won't have changed any of the fundamental underlying conditions, we won't have done our best from preventing this from happening again." - Sullenberger in 2012.
Well look at what they just did.......
Well look at what they just did.......
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have not yet read the full judgement text , but I very much doubt the judges blamed the pilots ( contrary to what many posters here in PPRuNe did ) in fact the sister of one of the F/O interviewed yesterday said she was glad they did not . As I understood it , no one is blamed for that accident and that is was is infuriating the families.
Except in this case the flight deck human factors caused the crash.
Yes there was a momentary tech issue, however it should have been well within the pilots capabilities.
The most beneficial investigation would be into how there could be a training and testing regime that led to the pilots being unable to fly an aircraft.
Yes there was a momentary tech issue, however it should have been well within the pilots capabilities.
The most beneficial investigation would be into how there could be a training and testing regime that led to the pilots being unable to fly an aircraft.
Well I have not yet read the full judgement text , but I very much doubt the judges blamed the pilots ( contrary to what many posters here in PPRuNe did ) in fact the sister of one of the F/O interviewed yesterday said she was glad they did not . As I understood it , no one is blamed for that accident and that is was is infuriating the families.
Except in this case the flight deck human factors caused the crash.
Yes there was a momentary tech issue, however it should have been well within the pilots capabilities.
The most beneficial investigation would be into how there could be a training and testing regime that led to the pilots being unable to fly an aircraft.
Yes there was a momentary tech issue, however it should have been well within the pilots capabilities.
The most beneficial investigation would be into how there could be a training and testing regime that led to the pilots being unable to fly an aircraft.
Thread Starter
Just to close out my contribution to this thread, I've now had an opportunity to read the spoken judgement text - however, it has not yet been officially published, along with the full evidence and reasoning. In my own view, the Tribunal found nothing to add to or subtract from the BEA final report of 2011. They did emphasize that, in finding the criminal liability case against Airbus and Air France "not proven" (I'm adopting that Scottish verdict .....), they were emphatically not suggesting that some kind of case against the pilots was proven.
They did announce that fines of 250k euros would be imposed on Airbus and AF for their negligences. Both companies have aleady paid substantial "compensation" to the victims' families, for what that's worth.
As and when I see a link to published verdicts etc, I'll add it in. But they can be very slow to appear here in France.
They did announce that fines of 250k euros would be imposed on Airbus and AF for their negligences. Both companies have aleady paid substantial "compensation" to the victims' families, for what that's worth.
As and when I see a link to published verdicts etc, I'll add it in. But they can be very slow to appear here in France.
Thread Starter
In a procedurally unusual move, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Paris Court of Appeal has announced that they will seek to have a full appeal heard against the "not guilty" verdict recently announced by the initial court, claiming there are too many inconsistencies in the evidence and reasoning presented in that verdict. A distinct oddity is that it was the Prosecutor's Office team that declined to press for a guilty verdict in the trial, arguing that it was "impossible" to demonstrate that Airbus or Air France had directly caused the crash. But this appeal announcement is by a different (and arguably more senior) part of the Prosecutor's Office ........ There will undoubtedly now be arguments about whether any such appeal can actually go ahead, and these will take some time.
[BTW, the detailed verdict of the recent trial has still not been made available to the general public.]
[BTW, the detailed verdict of the recent trial has still not been made available to the general public.]
Last edited by Gary Brown; 27th Apr 2023 at 09:45. Reason: typos
So "double jeopardy" doesn't apply? At least in the US, there is a provision that if a defendant is found 'not guilty', they can't be prosecuted for that same crime again.
There are some provisions to that (see "O. J. Simpson" - acquitted in the criminal trial but found liable in civil court), but to an outsider I don't see how this would apply here.
There are some provisions to that (see "O. J. Simpson" - acquitted in the criminal trial but found liable in civil court), but to an outsider I don't see how this would apply here.
Thread Starter
Autre pays, autre moeurs ..... This is France, not the USA or UK. There is a double jeopardy protection here, but it's not really the same as many other jurisdictions. A crucial difference is that here, you can't be criminally tried twice for the same offence after the first proceedings have been definitively finished. Here, that final disposition of a case is (usually) after all appeals are denied or exhausted. So, in this case, the not guilty verdict can be challenged on appeal.
Thanks for that clarification, Gary. That answers my question.
On this side of the pond, "Not Guilty" court decisions cannot be appealed - only "Guilty". Part of that whole 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' thing.
As an aside, there was a movie many years ago about someone being tried for murder and acquitted - and then it turned out the 'victim' was in fact still alive. So the accused decided to go ahead and kill the 'victim' since double jeopardy would protect them (I'm afraid that's about all I remember about it except that it wasn't a very good movie).
On this side of the pond, "Not Guilty" court decisions cannot be appealed - only "Guilty". Part of that whole 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' thing.
As an aside, there was a movie many years ago about someone being tried for murder and acquitted - and then it turned out the 'victim' was in fact still alive. So the accused decided to go ahead and kill the 'victim' since double jeopardy would protect them (I'm afraid that's about all I remember about it except that it wasn't a very good movie).
Thread Starter
I don't want to waste our valuable space and time here with diversions into legal theory and practice ....... But, for those interested, the Wiki article on Double Jeopardy round the world is quite comprehensive and - imho - quite accurate. Suffice it to say that pretty much everywhere there are (limited) circumstances in which accused can be tried twice for the same offence .......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
