AF447 Involuntary Manslaughter Trial

[Gary Brown]

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/2022/oct/10/air-france-flight-af477-2009-crash-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]

[Bergerie1]

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.

[Gary Brown]

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......

[fdr]

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.

[Manual Pitch Trim]

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.

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/airnavigation/OPS/CabinSafety/Cabin%20Safety%20Library/Accidents%20in%20Doc%2010062/Air%20Ontario%201363%20-%20Survival%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.

[zambonidriver]

Where was EASA on the probe issues?
There are things that need to change, a court case is necessary, providing its done right.
There lies the crux of the matter...

[paulross]

SLF here. Perhaps Air New Zealand Flight 901 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Erebus_disaster) might be considered as how a court, or an inquiry, might improve flight safety. The review into XV230 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_crash) might be another.

[zambonidriver]

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).

[Bergerie1]

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.

[Gary Brown]

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).


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.

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.

[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.

[Bergerie1]

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.

[zambonidriver]

[See also my reply above]. Worth remembering that court - even criminal - proceedings here in France are not (wholly....) based on the adverserial model, but are a judge-led investigation of an enormous eveidential dossier assembled beforehand by the judicial police.
Sorry to ask - is this a civil or criminal trail (or both) ?

[RatherBeFlying]

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

[DaveReidUK]

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

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."

[Gary Brown]

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.

[flash8]

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.Directly perhaps not, indirect certainly, look at Erebus.

[Concours77]

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).

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.....

[Gary Brown]

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/20221207-french-prosecutors-will-not-seek-convictions-for-airbus-or-air-france-over-2009-rio-paris-crash

[Concours77]

"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.... ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[Concours77]

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

[ATC Watcher]

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
on your list you forgot Thales...
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.

[Gary Brown]

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.

[ATC Watcher]

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...

[ATC Watcher]

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 Danièle 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.

[Concours77]

From AP : One would have thought the Goodrich probes would have been a priority refit for ETOPS. Does the French Government still own a substantial share of Air France? At the time of the crash, I think it was ~15%

[WideScreen]

One would have thought the Goodrich probes would have been a priority refit for ETOPS. Does the French Government still own a substantial share of Air France? At the time of the crash, I think it was ~15%
What has ETOPS to do with a probe failure, apart from the crossing of the ITCZ, which creates more icing hazards? Though, those crossing also happen outside ETOPS operations.

[VHOED191006]

"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.......

[ATC Watcher]

"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 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.

[Locked door]

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.

[VHOED191006]

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.
An article I read stated that the conclusion the prosecutors in the case had come to was that the pilots had 'failed to overcome their stress and surprise' after the AP disconnected and everything went into Alternate Law. If I have fallen victim to misinformation, then my apologies.

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.
Exactly. How did those pilots manage to get so wrong, to the point where they weren't talking to each other properly?! You've got to look at the training system that they were under, because that is what is meant to catch that out.

[Gary Brown]

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.

[Gary Brown]

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.]

[tdracer]

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.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Because the "jeopardy" which cannot be doubled is in criminal responsibility only.

[tdracer]

Because the "jeopardy" which cannot be doubled is in criminal responsibility only.
But isn't "Involuntary Manslaughter" criminal responsibility? The defendants have already accepted civil responsibility.
What am I missing?

[WillowRun 6-3]

tdracer, I was referring only to the U.S. legal principle (as illustrated by the Simpson cases).

[Gary Brown]

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.

[tdracer]

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).

[Gary Brown]

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