Five people to face Concorde crash trial
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machaca
According to who/what? Surely you're not going to blindly defend AF with only the filtered details contained within the BEA report?!
).Now in regard to the values, I don't have anything else to propose that what is officially available. Do you have a reliable alternative?
While the BEA report is clearly voluntarily ignoring some issues (effects of the missing spacer during previous landings), I don't think its values have been altered on purpose.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wings folded,
The reason many of us doubt the existence of a determined will to find the truth is that the only ones being charged are the ones highlighted by the BEA (Continental) and ones who are so far back in history that they will be dealt with leniently anyhow.
If the public prosecutor had listened to the other opinion existing and had demanded the prosecution of the AF engineer responsible for the non-replacement of the spacer (as everyone EXCEPT the BEA seems to understand the importance of this ), perhaps the person compiling the loadsheet, perhaps the controller who didn't see the smoke & flames until WAY too late (CDG controllers don't look out the window , I operated there for 6 yrs & I can give some hideous examples that prove that claim) the Director of Flight Training of the Concorde fleet, indeed , 1 single person associated with Air France, somebody ? ? nobody ? ? cmon ! ! maybe we could give more credence to this "process" which seems to me to be heavily loaded to dump the blame at the first & last holes in the cheese, whilst conveniently absolving (indeed not even accusing ) the embarassing mould in the middle.
Me, I think it is a cover up, let the verdict satisfy the professional pilot population throughout Europe & I will be happy to retract that statement.
The reason many of us doubt the existence of a determined will to find the truth is that the only ones being charged are the ones highlighted by the BEA (Continental) and ones who are so far back in history that they will be dealt with leniently anyhow.
If the public prosecutor had listened to the other opinion existing and had demanded the prosecution of the AF engineer responsible for the non-replacement of the spacer (as everyone EXCEPT the BEA seems to understand the importance of this ), perhaps the person compiling the loadsheet, perhaps the controller who didn't see the smoke & flames until WAY too late (CDG controllers don't look out the window , I operated there for 6 yrs & I can give some hideous examples that prove that claim) the Director of Flight Training of the Concorde fleet, indeed , 1 single person associated with Air France, somebody ? ? nobody ? ? cmon ! ! maybe we could give more credence to this "process" which seems to me to be heavily loaded to dump the blame at the first & last holes in the cheese, whilst conveniently absolving (indeed not even accusing ) the embarassing mould in the middle.
Me, I think it is a cover up, let the verdict satisfy the professional pilot population throughout Europe & I will be happy to retract that statement.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captplaystation you really don't get anything about my point
I'm not attacking BA and I'm not saying its maintenance wasn't good. I'm just saying that it's a quick shortcut to use AF violations to pretend BA didn't have any responsibility in addressing and mitigating the concorde's risks.
BA was certainly a much better operator for concorde, but this has nothing to do with the fact that French & British operators, civil aviation authorities, crews, engineers and investigation boards failed to mitigate the risks.
I chose to make comparison with BA to demonstrate the risks were most probably also inherent to the aircraft. In no way my point was to "attack".
By the way, while you keep on blaming the maintenance for the missing spacer, I still didn't get explanations for the 10 lost wheel nuts which perforated a BA's concorde fuel tank....wasn't it a maintenance issue?
I'm not attacking BA and I'm not saying its maintenance wasn't good. I'm just saying that it's a quick shortcut to use AF violations to pretend BA didn't have any responsibility in addressing and mitigating the concorde's risks.
BA was certainly a much better operator for concorde, but this has nothing to do with the fact that French & British operators, civil aviation authorities, crews, engineers and investigation boards failed to mitigate the risks.
I chose to make comparison with BA to demonstrate the risks were most probably also inherent to the aircraft. In no way my point was to "attack".
By the way, while you keep on blaming the maintenance for the missing spacer, I still didn't get explanations for the 10 lost wheel nuts which perforated a BA's concorde fuel tank....wasn't it a maintenance issue
?
Last edited by S.F.L.Y; 7th Feb 2010 at 19:23.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The prosecution obviously follows the BEA report, so if you don't believe in that report, you will think of the prosecution whatever you like.
But there is a distinction between prosecution and judge. A judge may not follow the prosection, and it happens every day in every decent judicial system like the french. A judge, as far as I understand, may even call witnesses on his/her own.
So, if the alternative explanation has merits, it will have a chance.
But there is a distinction between prosecution and judge. A judge may not follow the prosection, and it happens every day in every decent judicial system like the french. A judge, as far as I understand, may even call witnesses on his/her own.
So, if the alternative explanation has merits, it will have a chance.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wings folded,
If in fact the trial judges go beyond the scope of the criminal bill and pursues the blatantly obvious lines of inquiry in depth then I'll be happy to comment appropriately. My thoughts prior to the trial is that any all elements outside the scope of the prosecutors draft will be either downplayed or even potentially excluded from consideration. So in the end it would appear that a forgone verdict exists prior to the commencement of the trial. In then end all of us will be able sit in judgement on the validity of the trial.
If in fact the trial judges go beyond the scope of the criminal bill and pursues the blatantly obvious lines of inquiry in depth then I'll be happy to comment appropriately. My thoughts prior to the trial is that any all elements outside the scope of the prosecutors draft will be either downplayed or even potentially excluded from consideration. So in the end it would appear that a forgone verdict exists prior to the commencement of the trial. In then end all of us will be able sit in judgement on the validity of the trial.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde Crash
The technical arguments have been done to death. We all know and understand what and how it happened. The purpose of the BEA investigation was to learn from it and avoid a recurrence. It achieved precisely that. The purpose of the criminal trial now is to deal with the issue of blame.
Roland Rapport, a lawyer for the victims said " it is unimaginable that all it takes is a burst tyre to crash an airplane ". Particularly so apt when considered in the context of SST Concorde. Back in the early days of the wide body jets, a 747 on take off removed most of a light gantry but remained airborne. This is the very reason why France has put on trial her very own plane makers responsible for its design and her own Civil Aviation authority for allowing it to fly. The five incidents 1979-1981 evidenced the weakness in design and the lack of adequate fuel tank protection. The charges eminate from their alleged neglect in failing to act in their knowledge or at least their awareness of this design weakness. The subsequent AD to reinforce/protect the fuel tanks is proof enough.
Continental`s part is relatively small ( no pun intended ) even if they are found guilty I do not believe they will carry the whole burden of responsibility for the accident. After all it could have been any other FOD from any other source, or a simple tyre burst, the whole question must be was Concorde an accident waiting to happen.
This I believe is the question that the French Judiciary will bravely and openly deal with.
Roland Rapport, a lawyer for the victims said " it is unimaginable that all it takes is a burst tyre to crash an airplane ". Particularly so apt when considered in the context of SST Concorde. Back in the early days of the wide body jets, a 747 on take off removed most of a light gantry but remained airborne. This is the very reason why France has put on trial her very own plane makers responsible for its design and her own Civil Aviation authority for allowing it to fly. The five incidents 1979-1981 evidenced the weakness in design and the lack of adequate fuel tank protection. The charges eminate from their alleged neglect in failing to act in their knowledge or at least their awareness of this design weakness. The subsequent AD to reinforce/protect the fuel tanks is proof enough.
Continental`s part is relatively small ( no pun intended ) even if they are found guilty I do not believe they will carry the whole burden of responsibility for the accident. After all it could have been any other FOD from any other source, or a simple tyre burst, the whole question must be was Concorde an accident waiting to happen.
This I believe is the question that the French Judiciary will bravely and openly deal with.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wozzo,
I truly hope you are right, and this is how it pans out.
The only problem, it will be a terrible loss of face/slap in the face if the court finds contrary to the BEA, will this be politically palatable ?
Nationalistic pride apart, courtesy of the internet, we read, or at least can if we choose, so much information nowadays, that MAYBE (God I hope so ) this sham (and I do not apologise for this term) of a conclusion by the BEA may indeed not be allowed to remain, even by the French public, as the definitive explanation of what really happened that day.
I truly hope you are right, and this is how it pans out.
The only problem, it will be a terrible loss of face/slap in the face if the court finds contrary to the BEA, will this be politically palatable ?
Nationalistic pride apart, courtesy of the internet, we read, or at least can if we choose, so much information nowadays, that MAYBE (God I hope so ) this sham (and I do not apologise for this term) of a conclusion by the BEA may indeed not be allowed to remain, even by the French public, as the definitive explanation of what really happened that day.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEA should have mandated better protection from tire debris way back in the 70's after a famous incident, and if they werent prepared to do that then they should have mandated runway inspections before each and every Concorde takeoff.AF and BEA must carry the blame for it.Nothing to do with Continental.Like every other crash before it,its a case of the tombstone imperative..ie nothing gets done until people die.
As if you didn´t know that the BEA does not have the power to mandate anything. They can make recommendations and that´s it. Up to aviation authorities to mandate something or not, irrespective of anything the accident investigators might recommend. EASA, these days.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must be mising something here, but all these comments have made me look at the report or at least some off it again and there aare a couple of points which confuse me
1] the aircraft is reported to have drifted to the left of the runway [due to this missing spacer] during the take off run, so one would have expected to see some input to correct this. Now as the nosewheel steering was connected to the rudder one would have expected to see some movement to the right on the rudder pedals, but all I can see are two rather big imputs [10 degs] to the left at about 50 to 60 knots. Subsequent there is the big imput of right rudder at engine failure
2] Not that it really has a any input on the crash but it would seem from the Concordesst site that the co-pilots medical was out of date, ie as he was over 40 years old his medical lasted for 6 months to the day and his last medical was 17th Jan 2000. therefore under FCL.1 regs [1999] he should have renewed it by the 17th July at the latest.
Again nothing to do with the crash but I am suprised that if true Air France would miss this.
1] the aircraft is reported to have drifted to the left of the runway [due to this missing spacer] during the take off run, so one would have expected to see some input to correct this. Now as the nosewheel steering was connected to the rudder one would have expected to see some movement to the right on the rudder pedals, but all I can see are two rather big imputs [10 degs] to the left at about 50 to 60 knots. Subsequent there is the big imput of right rudder at engine failure
2] Not that it really has a any input on the crash but it would seem from the Concordesst site that the co-pilots medical was out of date, ie as he was over 40 years old his medical lasted for 6 months to the day and his last medical was 17th Jan 2000. therefore under FCL.1 regs [1999] he should have renewed it by the 17th July at the latest.
Again nothing to do with the crash but I am suprised that if true Air France would miss this.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humble SLF here but IIRC it was SOP on a Concorde departure to add a bit of rudder on the initial roll, as the number 4 (or 1, an outboard one anyway) reheat would automatically light later than the others, as the wing vortex would wash over this engine's exhaust just as the reheats were trying to light.
You could feel this at the front of the front cabin as a little 'shimmy' just after power was applied.
You could feel this at the front of the front cabin as a little 'shimmy' just after power was applied.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts prior to the trial is that any all elements outside the scope of the prosecutors draft will be either downplayed or even potentially excluded from consideration. So in the end it would appear that a forgone verdict exists prior to the commencement of the trial.
Your ability to know with certainty what a future outcome will be is an extraordinary gift.
It's a pity you spoil it all by advancing remarks to do with French legal process which are just incorrect.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually my opinion is shaped as it is because I see the trial as an extension of the indictment. The prosecutor created a very limited playing field by ignoring significant factors glossed over in the BEA report. So in the end we are left with a couple of poor sods that were coerced into bad decisions decades ago and a convenient scapegoat (Continental) while ignoring the underlying operational transgressions and shortcomings that may very well be the root cause of the tragedy.
initial rudder inputs.
L.B, Hi.
Your observation is consistent with the delay in the #4 engine achieving afterburner light off and rated thrust. This does appear to be a fairly small lateral acceleration. The first 2 LH rudder inputs appear to have quite a lag before generating a LH acceleration, but may be characteristic of the aircrafts lateral control response.
The Investigation
It is unfortunate that the excellent work conducted by the BEA on their analysis of TO performance, 5 May 2008, using Erik Hollnagel's Failure Resonance Analysis Method, FRAM was not used on the investigation of F-BTSC, as it may have lead to a more holistic understanding of the event, and perhaps would have quenched some of the enthusiasm of the Judiciary to test a few individuals accountability vs the general and (arguably) understandable failure of the system to adequately protect the operation from a relatively complex failure mode.
After the fact it is easy to draw straight lines from the effect backwards to the perceived causes, it is far tougher to develop the risks from the start of operation, and predict the consequences of multi factorial resonant behavior.
At some point do the authorities place the politicians on trial as well? as they are a factor in the provision of resources, and regulatory structure under which it is assumed that the DGCA and COA personnel worked under.
It is easy for the inquisitor to hold the individual accountable for not acting on knowledge that didn't exist at the time of the occurrence, where this knowledge becomes identified post event; what is forseeable pre- and post- event are quite different, although there was a fair amount of evidence accumulated before 25th Jul 2000 to indicate that the SST was susceptible to compound failures arising from a forseeable failure of a tyre; that this opportunity was missed is clearer post event than it would have been pre event, but as is occasionally the case, each component of the failure had been assessed separately and were evaluated to be adequately protected or remote enough not to be a factor. On the day, all that could go wrong, did.
The failures of tyres/wheels/hydraulics/gear retraction/engine damage were documented well prior to the accident, stemming from either tyre failure or FOD damage leading to tyre failure.
Your observation is consistent with the delay in the #4 engine achieving afterburner light off and rated thrust. This does appear to be a fairly small lateral acceleration. The first 2 LH rudder inputs appear to have quite a lag before generating a LH acceleration, but may be characteristic of the aircrafts lateral control response.
The Investigation
It is unfortunate that the excellent work conducted by the BEA on their analysis of TO performance, 5 May 2008, using Erik Hollnagel's Failure Resonance Analysis Method, FRAM was not used on the investigation of F-BTSC, as it may have lead to a more holistic understanding of the event, and perhaps would have quenched some of the enthusiasm of the Judiciary to test a few individuals accountability vs the general and (arguably) understandable failure of the system to adequately protect the operation from a relatively complex failure mode.
After the fact it is easy to draw straight lines from the effect backwards to the perceived causes, it is far tougher to develop the risks from the start of operation, and predict the consequences of multi factorial resonant behavior.
At some point do the authorities place the politicians on trial as well? as they are a factor in the provision of resources, and regulatory structure under which it is assumed that the DGCA and COA personnel worked under.
It is easy for the inquisitor to hold the individual accountable for not acting on knowledge that didn't exist at the time of the occurrence, where this knowledge becomes identified post event; what is forseeable pre- and post- event are quite different, although there was a fair amount of evidence accumulated before 25th Jul 2000 to indicate that the SST was susceptible to compound failures arising from a forseeable failure of a tyre; that this opportunity was missed is clearer post event than it would have been pre event, but as is occasionally the case, each component of the failure had been assessed separately and were evaluated to be adequately protected or remote enough not to be a factor. On the day, all that could go wrong, did.
The failures of tyres/wheels/hydraulics/gear retraction/engine damage were documented well prior to the accident, stemming from either tyre failure or FOD damage leading to tyre failure.
Last edited by fdr; 8th Feb 2010 at 13:30.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judical systems
I love it when the Yanks get a bee in their bonnets when a "good 'ole boy" ends up facing a court in the old continent. If it goes against the US carrier then it would be considered by them as a unfair trial, biased Judges, media etc and no doubt the Taleban and other nasty people who think differently from the US are all in on it!
Can we stick to the facts, please!
Can we stick to the facts, please!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF in AZ
And you are still doing it.
You may see the trial as an extension of the indictment
"Indictment" is a feature unique to Common Law regimes. It has no sense, meaning, validity under other forms of law.
So your point is totally without foundation.
This trial is not to be conducted under US regimes of law, custom or practice, because although it may strike you as inconvenient, the accident occurred on French soil, and according to a non-judicial investigation by a duly competent investigation body, there is a question of responsibility to be answered by a corporate body which happens to be American.
It will no doubt bore other readers, but I will just attempt one more time to assist you in your understanding of French legal process.
You may not have followed the story, but a former Prime Minister of France was tried recently for having been allegedly complicit in a smear campaign against the President of France amongst others, in connection with what became known as the "Clearstream" affair.
The Court cleared him absolutely of the charges. The President was a "Partie Civile" (see earlier posts about the meaning of this, but briefly means that he was a private party to the prosecution).
The judges used and showed their complete independence from administrative interference in reaching their decision.
No.
We are left with a judicial process scheduled to last 4 months or so, when all aspects will be examined.
Under your version of things, they could all show up and say "It was Continental's fault"
The evil French would all agree.
The hearing would last 20 minutes.
But it is not like that.
Actually my opinion is shaped as it is because I see the trial as an extension of the indictment.
You may see the trial as an extension of the indictment
"Indictment" is a feature unique to Common Law regimes. It has no sense, meaning, validity under other forms of law.
So your point is totally without foundation.
This trial is not to be conducted under US regimes of law, custom or practice, because although it may strike you as inconvenient, the accident occurred on French soil, and according to a non-judicial investigation by a duly competent investigation body, there is a question of responsibility to be answered by a corporate body which happens to be American.
It will no doubt bore other readers, but I will just attempt one more time to assist you in your understanding of French legal process.
You may not have followed the story, but a former Prime Minister of France was tried recently for having been allegedly complicit in a smear campaign against the President of France amongst others, in connection with what became known as the "Clearstream" affair.
The Court cleared him absolutely of the charges. The President was a "Partie Civile" (see earlier posts about the meaning of this, but briefly means that he was a private party to the prosecution).
The judges used and showed their complete independence from administrative interference in reaching their decision.
So in the end we are left with a couple of poor sods that were coerced into bad decisions decades ago and a convenient scapegoat (Continental) while ignoring the underlying operational transgressions and shortcomings that may very well be the root cause of the tragedy.
We are left with a judicial process scheduled to last 4 months or so, when all aspects will be examined.
Under your version of things, they could all show up and say "It was Continental's fault"
The evil French would all agree.
The hearing would last 20 minutes.
But it is not like that.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wings folded,
The reason many of us doubt the existence of a determined will to find the truth is that the only ones being charged are the ones highlighted by the BEA (Continental) and ones who are so far back in history that they will be dealt with leniently anyhow.
If the public prosecutor had listened to the other opinion existing and had demanded the prosecution of the AF engineer responsible for the non-replacement of the spacer (as everyone EXCEPT the BEA seems to understand the importance of this ), perhaps the person compiling the loadsheet, perhaps the controller who didn't see the smoke & flames until WAY too late (CDG controllers don't look out the window , I operated there for 6 yrs & I can give some hideous examples that prove that claim) the Director of Flight Training of the Concorde fleet, indeed , 1 single person associated with Air France, somebody ? ? nobody ? ? cmon ! ! maybe we could give more credence to this "process" which seems to me to be heavily loaded to dump the blame at the first & last holes in the cheese, whilst conveniently absolving (indeed not even accusing ) the embarassing mould in the middle.
Me, I think it is a cover up, let the verdict satisfy the professional pilot population throughout Europe & I will be happy to retract that statemen
The reason many of us doubt the existence of a determined will to find the truth is that the only ones being charged are the ones highlighted by the BEA (Continental) and ones who are so far back in history that they will be dealt with leniently anyhow.
If the public prosecutor had listened to the other opinion existing and had demanded the prosecution of the AF engineer responsible for the non-replacement of the spacer (as everyone EXCEPT the BEA seems to understand the importance of this ), perhaps the person compiling the loadsheet, perhaps the controller who didn't see the smoke & flames until WAY too late (CDG controllers don't look out the window , I operated there for 6 yrs & I can give some hideous examples that prove that claim) the Director of Flight Training of the Concorde fleet, indeed , 1 single person associated with Air France, somebody ? ? nobody ? ? cmon ! ! maybe we could give more credence to this "process" which seems to me to be heavily loaded to dump the blame at the first & last holes in the cheese, whilst conveniently absolving (indeed not even accusing ) the embarassing mould in the middle.
Me, I think it is a cover up, let the verdict satisfy the professional pilot population throughout Europe & I will be happy to retract that statemen
Do let us know the rest of the judgement of which you are aware by some miraculous time shift.
We are all wasting our time here since you know the outcome in advance. Put us out of our misery. Tell us the reasoned findings as they will emerge in 4 months.
Like so many other contributors to this thread, you fall into the mistake of beleiving that only the BEA report will be heard.
A judicial process can and will hear properly formulated evidence from any concerned party.
Even in France.
let the verdict satisfy the professional pilot population throughout Europe & I will be happy to retract that statement
I entrust my life to them frequently.
I get a little bit nervous when they think they also know the law inside out.
Remain safe, dedicated, skilled pilots.
It is already quite a task. Try not to get too distracted from it.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give us a break!
"Too distracted"? Just because someone here probably has trouble typing while chewing gum doesn't mean that we all share this problem.
In fact most pilots can think about sex, bitch about their low pay and shoot an ILS down to minimums all at the same time. Okay, maybe not so well, when you nervous passengers have to read about this post-crash on the CVR transcript but still...
No sweat, my man, you have sold us on the benefits of the Napoleonic Code and we now have infinite faith in the French legal system shaking the truth out of this murky affair.
In fact most pilots can think about sex, bitch about their low pay and shoot an ILS down to minimums all at the same time. Okay, maybe not so well, when you nervous passengers have to read about this post-crash on the CVR transcript but still...
No sweat, my man, you have sold us on the benefits of the Napoleonic Code and we now have infinite faith in the French legal system shaking the truth out of this murky affair.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
properly formulated evidence
This is exactly what I fear will happen. The "inquisitional" panel of judges will in it's "wisdom" limit its consideration to what it perceives as the above. Disregarding your semantics in previous posts the prosecutor has determined (in his view) who the culpable parties are. If the court follows this line of reasoning then it's left crippled IMO. Since you present yourself as someone more knowledgeable answer this question. Can the court dismiss a portion of the criminal indictment at its discretion and directly charge or instruct the prosecutor to charge another party it views as at fault? My guess is that the answer is a resounding NO.
A judicial process can and will hear properly formulated evidence from any concerned party This is a non starter and entirely false in any jurisdiction. A "concerned party" may not have standing and the evidence that party may wish to present may or may not be deemed as appropriate. I would go so far as to argue that the complete absence of both the airport authority and AF from the charge sheet is specifically designed to prevent any serious inquiry into their potential culpability.
This is exactly what I fear will happen. The "inquisitional" panel of judges will in it's "wisdom" limit its consideration to what it perceives as the above. Disregarding your semantics in previous posts the prosecutor has determined (in his view) who the culpable parties are. If the court follows this line of reasoning then it's left crippled IMO. Since you present yourself as someone more knowledgeable answer this question. Can the court dismiss a portion of the criminal indictment at its discretion and directly charge or instruct the prosecutor to charge another party it views as at fault? My guess is that the answer is a resounding NO.
A judicial process can and will hear properly formulated evidence from any concerned party This is a non starter and entirely false in any jurisdiction. A "concerned party" may not have standing and the evidence that party may wish to present may or may not be deemed as appropriate. I would go so far as to argue that the complete absence of both the airport authority and AF from the charge sheet is specifically designed to prevent any serious inquiry into their potential culpability.