AF447 Involuntary Manslaughter Trial
 

Just a note that the Involuntary Manslaughter trial of Air France and Airbus starts in Paris today. Unlike previous somewhat similar trials, no named individuals are being prosecuted, it being all at the corporate level.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...h-trial-airbus

Just to add a few things - the trial is due to last until December 8th; though verdicts are often very slow to come in France after such trials. The two main charges are:

Air France pour s’être «abstenu de mettre en œuvre une formation adaptée (et) l’information des équipages qui s’imposait» face au givrage des sondes, «ce qui a empêché les pilotes de réagir comme il le fallait».
[Air France for having failed to put in place a training program and alert system regarding probe icing events, which failure prevented the crew from resoving the situation]

Airbus a été renvoyé pour avoir «sous-estimé la gravité des défaillances des sondes anémométriques équipant l’aéronef A330, en ne prenant pas toutes les dispositions nécessaires pour informer d’urgence les équipages des sociétés exploitantes et contribuer à les former efficacement».
[Airbus is charged with having underestimated the seriousness of probe icing events on the A330, and not having done everything to give urgent alerts to operators and to help them to put proper training in place.]
[The charge details taken from today's Figaro, subscription access only]

I think the reasons for this accident have been flogged to death. I doubt very much that this trial will prove anything. Legal processes do not usually enhance flight safety.

Very much agreed.

But worth saying that the French state had earlier declined to pursue corporate manslaughter charges. A collection of victim families successfully appealed this decision, and those charges have now indeed come to criminal trial (NB, such trials in France are primarily investigative, not confrontational, before a verdict).

Plus - imho - an adverse corporate manslaughter verdict may have more impact on company behavior than a "rogue individual" verdict. Air France and Airbus are using a defence of "the crew messed up", while the prosecutors are arguing that the corporate systems messed the crew up. A corporation can insure - and build in the cost of insurance - against the consequences of the former. Much more difficult to insure against the latter, so investors should (Ha! "should".....) prefer corporate re-thinks. Or maybe I'm a cock-eyed optimist......

Parties
 

yet they place no responsibility on the regulator that certified the aircraft, with the system architecture that was deficient. You can't Blame AFR or Airbus and not blame the party that set the standards that were in place.

Dryden court case 1989 F-28
 

I disagree with this statement completely. I stand with the victim’s families on having a impartial judge study it. Its come late though.

Where was EASA on the probe issues?

There are things that need to change, a court case is necessary, providing its done right.

It was a court case and judge that did a lot to improve flight safety in Canada affecting ICAO regulations on de icing procedures. Dryden 1989 F-28. A good judge and inquiry can improve flight safety


https://www.icao.int/safety/airnavig...%20Factors.pdf





Airbus still has too much influence on EASA. This hasnt changed since EASA needs to be more objective and independent, and be purer in flight safety, I hope the trial addresses this.
Prior to Air France there was no annual jet upset training in Europe EASA but at the FAA yes. Why?

Airbus was training pilots incorrectly that the aircraft couldnt be stalled and changed the QRH after AF447. The EASA/Airbus/AF closeness needs addressing still.

There lies the crux of the matter...

SLF here. Perhaps Air New Zealand Flight 901 might be considered as how a court, or an inquiry, might improve flight safety. The review into XV230 might be another.

In what I believe to be an usual move the court has decided to organise a hearing of the CVR last minutes.
It will happen on Oct 17 behind closed doors (on the judges, lawyers and plaintifs).

MPT, I did say usually. I agree that in some cases legal processes have been helpful. But more often the adversarial methods of the courts tend to obscure the real underlying reasons for accidents, and inhibit the free flow of information as needed for a truly Just Culture.

This is not so unusual here in France. A criminal trial is primarily an judge-led investigation and analyis of a massive pre-established dossier of relevant information. There are very few exclusionary rules regarding evidence, and usually no direct examination of witnesses (which is all done beforehand by the judicial police). Lawers are there to represent various parties, but their courtroom role is usually just to make suggestions to the judges on the weight of established evidence - they don't get to "cross examine" in the UK / UK sense. So, the CVR recordings are "just" part of the dossier.

Criminal trials here usually have a panel of 3 professional judges, and 6 court-appointed "lay assessors", and various complicated super-majorities are needed to reach a verdict. I'm not 100% sure in this trial if lay assessors are in fact part of the set-up.

[See also my reply above]. Worth remembering that court - even criminal - proceedings here in France are not (wholly....) based on the adversarial model, but are a judge-led investigation of an enormous eveidential dossier assembled beforehand by the judicial police.

GB, You are right. Although I live in France, I am more used to UK law. And having watched it in action on aviation matters, I am not impressed.

Sorry to ask - is this a civil or criminal trail (or both) ?

Coziness between EASA and Airbus was repeated by FAA and Boeing on the other side of the pond until MAX.

Per the link in post #1:

"Air France and Airbus face potential fines of up to €225,000 – a fraction of their annual revenues – but they could suffer damage to their reputations if found criminally responsible.

Both companies have denied any criminal negligence, and investigating magistrates overseeing the case dropped the charges in 2019, attributing the crash mainly to pilot error."

Yes, it's a fully criminal trial. But, as the defendents are corporations not individuals, the consequences of any guilty verdicts are effectively civil (fines etc). The original charges were dropped in 2019, as stated. But a collection of victims' families (which I think may include the pilots' - but I'm not sure) appealed that decision all the way up to the French "Supreme Court", and won. Charges were ordered to be re-instated, and this is now the trial as a result of that.

Directly perhaps not, indirect certainly, look at Erebus.

Without an in depth and exhaustive study of the CVR (In public...!) there is no reason to fit the device: "...What was THAT!...". "I think we have some crazy speed...! "...We have lost all indications..."

And the final rhetorical:
"....Pitch ten degrees..." (Captain Marc DuBois)....
iMO the report was rather dismissive of these eyewitnesses.....

I had entirely forgotten to update this thread.......

On 7th December last year, after a couple of months of hearings, there was a shock development - the Prosecutor said the State would no longer seek any convictions of Air France or Airbus:

"Corporate guilt seems impossible for us to demonstrate. We know that this view is difficult to hear for the civil parties, but we are not in a position to demand the condemnation of Airbus and Air France. Instead, Airbus and Air France should be justified in believing at the material time that these training and procedures should have been sufficient to manage the situation of AF 447."

The families - the "civil parties" - of the pilots, crew and passengers expressed some outrage over this prosecutors' decison........

NB - the Prosecutors' announcement does not end the case, as it is the Judges' verdict that matters - and, technically, the Judges could still announce a conviction, or some other kind of sanction, regardless of the Prosecutors' revised position. That does seem very unlikely though.

I believe the Judges are scheduled to deliver their verdict in a couple of weeks, though these things are often long delayed in France.


https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...io-paris-crash

"Airbus and Air France should be justified in believing at the material time that these training and procedures should have been sufficient to manage the situation of AF 447." Except for Recovery from high altitude Stall? Is (was) Pitch and Power trained? No Back up Speed System (BUSS) No ECAM short solution? No AoA display, no AH except on FD? ​​​​​​​There was no hint of even a partial solution? ​​​​​​​Only "Try UP..." Dubois... ​​​​​​​or "Pitch ten degrees" DuBois, at 400 feet, AGL. Check, AWL.... ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

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