AF 447 Search to resume
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Brazil
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relatives of victims of Flight 447 to Paris will ask for resumption of the search pla
Google translation from brazilian newspaper "Estado de São Paulo":
Relatives of victims of Flight 447 to Paris will ask for resumption of the search plane
October 13, 2010 | 00 0h
The president of the Association of Families of Victims of Flight 447 Air France, Nelson Marine, will defend in Paris on November 5, the resumption of the search of the wreckage of the Airbus A330, which disappeared in the Atlantic Ocean on the 31st of May last year. The plane went from Paris to Rio de Janeiro. The accident killed 228 people. Three searches were made after the accident, but there were no parts nor the black boxes from the aircraft. Among the 50 bodies found in searches, 20 were from Brazil.
In France, Marino and members of associations of other countries, seeking compensation for the relatives of victims of the flight, will meet with officials of the Department of Transport of France. On occasion, he hopes to take note of steps that have been taken by the French government to resume the search for wreckage, which depends on resources that must be released by the Ministry of Finance in that country.
Relatives of victims of Flight 447 to Paris will ask for resumption of the search plane
October 13, 2010 | 00 0h
The president of the Association of Families of Victims of Flight 447 Air France, Nelson Marine, will defend in Paris on November 5, the resumption of the search of the wreckage of the Airbus A330, which disappeared in the Atlantic Ocean on the 31st of May last year. The plane went from Paris to Rio de Janeiro. The accident killed 228 people. Three searches were made after the accident, but there were no parts nor the black boxes from the aircraft. Among the 50 bodies found in searches, 20 were from Brazil.
In France, Marino and members of associations of other countries, seeking compensation for the relatives of victims of the flight, will meet with officials of the Department of Transport of France. On occasion, he hopes to take note of steps that have been taken by the French government to resume the search for wreckage, which depends on resources that must be released by the Ministry of Finance in that country.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may now appear that the associations have little faith in the BEA ...
Press release dated October 9, 2010
Association Entraide & Solidarité AF447
Please, do not hesitate to improve or correct the translation.
Press release dated October 9, 2010
Association Entraide & Solidarité AF447
On Tuesday, October 5, 2010, the associations of families of victims of Flight AF447 attended the second meeting of the information committee set up at the request of Mr Dominique Bussereau, Secretary of State of Transport.
Partial responses to the questions asked failed to restore confidence already badly shaken after the successive failures of the searches at sea.
Transparency repeatedly requested was still not apparent and many facts show that the searches were not conducted with the rigor that we are entitled to expect from an official investigation body.
Allow us to doubt the constancy to take on commitments. The BEA has clearly stated the desirability for a fourth phase of research at sea, we do not understand this procrastination to delay a decision with so unconvincing reasons.
Partial responses to the questions asked failed to restore confidence already badly shaken after the successive failures of the searches at sea.
Transparency repeatedly requested was still not apparent and many facts show that the searches were not conducted with the rigor that we are entitled to expect from an official investigation body.
Allow us to doubt the constancy to take on commitments. The BEA has clearly stated the desirability for a fourth phase of research at sea, we do not understand this procrastination to delay a decision with so unconvincing reasons.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
How to read a PR
In the interest of transparency, BEA has failed miserably, and for reasons well discussed here. In any search for conclusions, intent is paramount; it is also the driving force of our legal system. As a benchmark, the authority will ordinarily aim high, to deflect criticism, especially from invested parties.
An out of balance motivation is easily identified: Who stands to "win", who will "lose"?
In issuing presumptive statements, BEA tipped its hands from the outset, and precious little has been done to rectify the impression of bias.
The damage has been done, and partisanship (bias) sullies the potential to recapture credibility.
It must be noted that the complaints derive from an involved party(s); BEA should have expected this. Communication is paramount; failing that, "faux" communication is an insuperable hurdle.
bear
In the interest of transparency, BEA has failed miserably, and for reasons well discussed here. In any search for conclusions, intent is paramount; it is also the driving force of our legal system. As a benchmark, the authority will ordinarily aim high, to deflect criticism, especially from invested parties.
An out of balance motivation is easily identified: Who stands to "win", who will "lose"?
In issuing presumptive statements, BEA tipped its hands from the outset, and precious little has been done to rectify the impression of bias.
The damage has been done, and partisanship (bias) sullies the potential to recapture credibility.
It must be noted that the complaints derive from an involved party(s); BEA should have expected this. Communication is paramount; failing that, "faux" communication is an insuperable hurdle.
bear
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Courts - "forum non conveniens" - AF447 accident
From a Brazilian press report - a tidied up Google translation:-
I'm sure the insurers will be happy with that!
mm43
A U.S. judge refused last week to open a case for compensation to relatives of victims of the flight AF 447 Air France accident, which killed 288 people on June 1, 2009 when flying the Rio de Janeiro - Paris route. The information was released on Friday by attorney Leonardo Amarante, who represents some victims' families.
In his ruling, Judge Charles R. Breyer, of the Court of California, said the U.S. court is not appropriate and dismissed the case, just as happened with the lawsuit by relatives of the victims of Gol Flight 1907 filed in the United States. "In the opinion of the court, the law shows that this is not the appropriate forum for a trial in this case," said the judge, on October 4.
"This Court has great sympathy for all families who lost loved ones in this horrible accident and is interested in examining the case for a fairly timely compensation, but sympathy can not be a substitute for the impartial application of the law" he added.
According to Leonardo Amarante, this type of decision aims to avoid a run on the U.S. courts, recognized worldwide for securing more favorable compensation to victims. "This experience has shown, the U.S. court is now completely closed to the trial of cases relating to accidents that have not happened in their country," he said. "The judge said the issue was 'forum non conveniens' for the trial of the case, and sent the case to another country, France. This is unfortunate, but it is a fact that all who wish to use American courts should be informed" said the lawyer.
In his ruling, Judge Charles R. Breyer, of the Court of California, said the U.S. court is not appropriate and dismissed the case, just as happened with the lawsuit by relatives of the victims of Gol Flight 1907 filed in the United States. "In the opinion of the court, the law shows that this is not the appropriate forum for a trial in this case," said the judge, on October 4.
"This Court has great sympathy for all families who lost loved ones in this horrible accident and is interested in examining the case for a fairly timely compensation, but sympathy can not be a substitute for the impartial application of the law" he added.
According to Leonardo Amarante, this type of decision aims to avoid a run on the U.S. courts, recognized worldwide for securing more favorable compensation to victims. "This experience has shown, the U.S. court is now completely closed to the trial of cases relating to accidents that have not happened in their country," he said. "The judge said the issue was 'forum non conveniens' for the trial of the case, and sent the case to another country, France. This is unfortunate, but it is a fact that all who wish to use American courts should be informed" said the lawyer.
mm43
Guest
Posts: n/a
mm43
Bonjour, a long time awaiting, no? Given the accuracy of the translation, the denial is probably one of jurisdiction, a first consideration of any court. The a/c was built (assembled) in France from parts created worldwide, flown by another nation's flag carrier, on a route that was not even tangential to US' territory. Those Americans on board were undoubtedly not thinking of jurisdiction, they were perhaps lost in thoughts of France, vacation, business, etc.
A Court, acting as a matter of "conveniens" must establish a thread of interest, legally. American citizens are quite helpless when travelling in the manner of AF447. Reason to fly United, on Boeings? Probably not, the odds are no doubt similar, and no one expects litigation.
Jurisdiction and compensation are exceedingly narrow, given the safe nature of Aviation as a whole. The Public interest is served here by an objective and energetic investigative authority; the aim should be to determine the cause and direct solutions.
Make up one's own mind re: the former.
ciao
bear
Bonjour, a long time awaiting, no? Given the accuracy of the translation, the denial is probably one of jurisdiction, a first consideration of any court. The a/c was built (assembled) in France from parts created worldwide, flown by another nation's flag carrier, on a route that was not even tangential to US' territory. Those Americans on board were undoubtedly not thinking of jurisdiction, they were perhaps lost in thoughts of France, vacation, business, etc.
A Court, acting as a matter of "conveniens" must establish a thread of interest, legally. American citizens are quite helpless when travelling in the manner of AF447. Reason to fly United, on Boeings? Probably not, the odds are no doubt similar, and no one expects litigation.
Jurisdiction and compensation are exceedingly narrow, given the safe nature of Aviation as a whole. The Public interest is served here by an objective and energetic investigative authority; the aim should be to determine the cause and direct solutions.
Make up one's own mind re: the former.
ciao
bear
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it has been discussed already from around mid august 2010 here
But none of the main daily or monthly newspapers (Le Figaro, L’Express, Le Point, LeMonde, ...) has made mention of it … !?
The closest I could find was in Le Point here
The communiqué de presse du 09 octobre 2010 by the Association Entraide & Solidarité AF447 is only partially transcribed but no mention of the concern regarding that pollution spot …?
And no link for the communiqué itself !
For reference :
4ème phase de recherche en mer, quelle est la situation ?
AF 447 : la nappe qui dérange
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture
It would seem that the relevance or otherwise of the 'pollution spot' has not been spotted by the media, or those with a vested interest in keeping the BEA "on its toes".
For the same reasons I expressed in my original post on the subject; the fact that the spots presence could not be explained, should signal further investigation. I have a feeling that Xmas is fast approaching, and the likelihood of not much happening until the New Year, probably sums it up.
mm43
It would seem that the relevance or otherwise of the 'pollution spot' has not been spotted by the media, or those with a vested interest in keeping the BEA "on its toes".
For the same reasons I expressed in my original post on the subject; the fact that the spots presence could not be explained, should signal further investigation. I have a feeling that Xmas is fast approaching, and the likelihood of not much happening until the New Year, probably sums it up.
mm43
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is good to see sanity in US courts though it is sad to see the crtisicm of the BEA from people who really don't understand the challenges of subsea searches.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For the record, I believe "criticism" is indicated in this case. Forget "SubSea", and consider the debris and pollution found within days of the accident on the surface.
Vague "explanations" were expressed "From a passing ship", the "slick is not relevant" etc. The most likely impact location appears to have been actively avoided, and criticism of BEA is "Unfortunate"?
A pallet was found, but it was wooden in manufacture, so could not have been "aboard". Really? Containers hold all manner of odd material, but lumber is evidence of absence? Ill considered pronouncements from the investigators were flying thick at the outset, to include the rejection of loss of hull contents prior to impact. Unproven. Autopsies were denied, and path results were limited (publicly) to conclusions which supported narrow and "beneficial" statements.
Sad? Mildly insulting, in the face of the circumstances, imo.
bear
Vague "explanations" were expressed "From a passing ship", the "slick is not relevant" etc. The most likely impact location appears to have been actively avoided, and criticism of BEA is "Unfortunate"?
A pallet was found, but it was wooden in manufacture, so could not have been "aboard". Really? Containers hold all manner of odd material, but lumber is evidence of absence? Ill considered pronouncements from the investigators were flying thick at the outset, to include the rejection of loss of hull contents prior to impact. Unproven. Autopsies were denied, and path results were limited (publicly) to conclusions which supported narrow and "beneficial" statements.
Sad? Mildly insulting, in the face of the circumstances, imo.
bear
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i do not think anybody is interested in founding the black boxes and give the results to the public. neither airfrance nor airbus.
basicly on the one hand we would see there that this plane flew into CB,s with hard turbulence and participation which would blame the skills of the airfrance pilots and on the other hand we would see at whatkind of turbulence and icing the airbus systems started to quit . in this case i bet boeing would find data from similar events that at similar circumstances an e.g 777 would probably survive to blame airbus.
i bet airfrance, airbus and bea have a gentlemen agreement not to provide details to the public...
basicly on the one hand we would see there that this plane flew into CB,s with hard turbulence and participation which would blame the skills of the airfrance pilots and on the other hand we would see at whatkind of turbulence and icing the airbus systems started to quit . in this case i bet boeing would find data from similar events that at similar circumstances an e.g 777 would probably survive to blame airbus.
i bet airfrance, airbus and bea have a gentlemen agreement not to provide details to the public...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry, enough of us try to keep track closely on what's going on, and it will be mentioned here as soon as there IS more news.
CJ
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I took a look at the background to the oil slick/pallet issue. These were investigated by the Brazillians who were the ones who concluded that these were not relevant. I do not think we can lay this at BEA's door.
I have been impressed by the level of analysis and intelligence that has gone into all the threads on this tradgedy. However, I have also noted the lack of knowledge of the maritime environment which has at times been quite glaring. Shell Management is right and everyone else who is hinting or suspecting conspiracies is wrong. Searching the sea surface let alone the ocean floor is incredibly difficult and and time consuming. Given the environment of the sea bed in that part of the ocean it is unsurprising that they have not found the wreckage or the black boxes yet. I would caution others not to suspect 'bias' or 'conspiracy' but just to accept that this is a very difficult process which will probably take more time and may never even be resolved. That is just the way things are.
I have been impressed by the level of analysis and intelligence that has gone into all the threads on this tradgedy. However, I have also noted the lack of knowledge of the maritime environment which has at times been quite glaring. Shell Management is right and everyone else who is hinting or suspecting conspiracies is wrong. Searching the sea surface let alone the ocean floor is incredibly difficult and and time consuming. Given the environment of the sea bed in that part of the ocean it is unsurprising that they have not found the wreckage or the black boxes yet. I would caution others not to suspect 'bias' or 'conspiracy' but just to accept that this is a very difficult process which will probably take more time and may never even be resolved. That is just the way things are.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is important to make some distinctions in the content of this thread. I don't think I have read where anyone has posted that Ocean floor survey is straightforward, or in any way "easy". Of course it is not. For the most part what has been seen is an attempt to put some "perspective" on institutional "mission", and bias.
People use the word "conspiracy" sometimes without regard to its meaning. Any conversation relative to any bias is considered such; scrupulous honesty in an industrial endeavour is too much to ask, it is naive.
I would direct anyone who feels the BEA has been mistreated to review some of my own observations. Lack of openness and transparency is obvious. When divulged, there is inclusion/exclusion of narrow data. Laying off suspicious pronouncements on others (Brazilians?) has no place; the "fuel slick" was deserving of more attention. Any deposit of lights on the sea has a source, and when self contained, is considered "fresh". The autopsies were used predictably, to address only the single "seated" conclusion. I think disagreement is healthy, but to label criticism as "ill-informed", lay, or "conspiratorial" goes a bit far.
I would be the first to abandon my position if what I think is a less than forthcoming and muddled handling of this investigation is found instead to be refreshingly and scrupulously direct and exhaustive.
bearfoil
People use the word "conspiracy" sometimes without regard to its meaning. Any conversation relative to any bias is considered such; scrupulous honesty in an industrial endeavour is too much to ask, it is naive.
I would direct anyone who feels the BEA has been mistreated to review some of my own observations. Lack of openness and transparency is obvious. When divulged, there is inclusion/exclusion of narrow data. Laying off suspicious pronouncements on others (Brazilians?) has no place; the "fuel slick" was deserving of more attention. Any deposit of lights on the sea has a source, and when self contained, is considered "fresh". The autopsies were used predictably, to address only the single "seated" conclusion. I think disagreement is healthy, but to label criticism as "ill-informed", lay, or "conspiratorial" goes a bit far.
I would be the first to abandon my position if what I think is a less than forthcoming and muddled handling of this investigation is found instead to be refreshingly and scrupulously direct and exhaustive.
bearfoil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A reading of the early stages of the investigation reveals that the Brazillian authorities investigated it and concluded that it was not kerosine and this was not linked to the accident. There is nothing suspicious about BEA accepting what they were told by others and basing their search on other information. There is a little bit too much paranoia (too strong a word?) here and a subliminal assumption that the French are trying to cover up and hide flaws in their aircraft design or construction. You yourself have expressed thoughts that the investigation is being directed along certain channels. This is veering towards the suggestion that there is a conspiracy so the reference is apposite.
It may indeed be that BEA possesses a bias but it must also be understood that finding the aircraft on the sea bottom is very difficult with the information available. The latter is the more likely reason for the non-emergence of information - there just isn't any information to release. It is difficult to grasp but the undersea environment is a totally different environment and what the BEA are attempting is a first at this depth. Patience is a vital factor in this search.
It may indeed be that BEA possesses a bias but it must also be understood that finding the aircraft on the sea bottom is very difficult with the information available. The latter is the more likely reason for the non-emergence of information - there just isn't any information to release. It is difficult to grasp but the undersea environment is a totally different environment and what the BEA are attempting is a first at this depth. Patience is a vital factor in this search.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think it is fair to say that we see things differently; we disagree. What I get from your comments prompts me to think you not only disagree, you question my entitlement to my view. I disagree with you; I do not question your right to entertain a contrary view.
I respect your viewpoint, and I also understand it. I ask that you respect my opinions as sincerely held; You needn't understand them if that is your wish.
regards
bear
I respect your viewpoint, and I also understand it. I ask that you respect my opinions as sincerely held; You needn't understand them if that is your wish.
regards
bear
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Carthusian;
The ocean surface is home to numerous oil slicks, mostly from ship's leaking propeller tube and rudder glands. The "pollution spot" to which you are presumably referring, is not one that was originally investigated by the Brazilian Navy. Those investigated slicks were located well to the SSE of the one observed by satellite.
mm43
A reading of the early stages of the investigation reveals that the Brazillian authorities investigated it and concluded that it was not kerosine and this was not linked to the accident.
mm43
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the Rising Sun
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm43
Actually no - I am referring to the slick and debris referenced by Bearfoil in #2229. The pollution spot is a different issue but not necessarily one that is of a high priority.
Actually no - I am referring to the slick and debris referenced by Bearfoil in #2229. The pollution spot is a different issue but not necessarily one that is of a high priority.
Last edited by Old Carthusian; 19th Oct 2010 at 08:17.
