Organfreak

@Hunter58:

What part of "Operations Management headed by the chief pilot" is not management???

Your "point" has no point.

PJ2

Hunter58;

Thanks for your response.

Regarding "management" and "Flight Operations Management" - First, as the CEO goes so goes the airline's corporate culture and priorities. If the CEO broadcasts that he or she will not tolerate compromise in safety standards and demands a healthy safety reporting culture, it will happen. If the CEO broadcasts the view that cost-control-at-all-cost is the priority, his lieutenants will ride out and do the CEOs bidding. It is the way bureaucracy, job security, promotion, and egos, work. The airline/corporate culture adopts the approach that the CEO broadcasts.

If the CEO does not have a comprehension of the aviation business and, more importantly, what keeps it safe, then there is little that operations, the safety department or the broader culture can do to counter picayune priorities that are set by the executive leadership.

The unspoken but not subtle belief conveyed is, "the business has to stay in business", and where there is normalization of deviance (cutting corners, "doing the right thing according to corporate values especially where there are no untoward outcomes), that is the corporate culture that will grow and which becomes "invisible" because it is "the way we do things." In such a culture, a serious incident or accident is unexpected and therefore is always a complete surprise, and blame not comprehension is the usual outcome in such cultures.

Now within that structure, certainly senior management, even operations management, can retard the retreat towards pure cost control, (which takes safety for granted). In fact in my experience that's how it works, to a greater/lesser degree. Those in the business know that a perfectly safe operation isn't possible without staying on the ground but running the business does not afford the time to understand..."there's a business to run". I have known CEOs who had absolutely no clue how flight safety actually worked to keep their aviation business safe - the apparent comprehension appeared in discussion and in print from the executive offices to be at the very rudimentary "have everyone wear safety vests while on the ramp" level. There was little understanding at senior management levels of the notion of the organizational accident, threat-and-error management and the importance of the basics, (as per Lonewolf_50's post).

Operations may be at the coal face and may be the only ones who truly comprehend what is required in an ongoing safety culture but if Operations does not have the active, involved support of the CEO, then they are limited, primarily by stature, (meaning, Marketing is more privileged than Operations or Maintenance), within the corporation and by budget contraints (and the subtle pressures which attend such dynamics) in their effectiveness and ability. In such cultures, flight safety departments are usually viewed as dead-end career-path choices.

These situations aren't static of course. People change with new awarenesses and I saw that too. The flight data program, very late in coming, was ignored for years until that kind of behaviour actually became a liability. When something showed up in the data they wanted to know "who that pilot was" so they still didn't get it. In this particular example data is slowly being valued and makes changes in SOPs so change does occur.

What is obvious to those who do flight safety work is not at all obvious to those who must run the business, and vice versa. That's neither good nor bad, it's a challenge...for both groups.

roulishollandais

Today the Cassation Court of France said in a definitive decision going against the General Prosecutor opinion, on Request from international lawyer Daniel Soulez Lariviere, that France Court could judge a criminal case who happened out of the French Waters.
All the men of the chain have been said culprit.

This decision is an important point for AF447 and the future aviation crashes.

The law of the "for" finds an important and safe precision, with safe independance of Judges for transport cases

PJ2

roulishollandais;

Thank you for this information.

"This decision is an important point for AF447 and the future aviation crashes."

Indeed.

Lonewolf_50

I would have been much surprised had they ruled otherwise.

(sotto voce ... do you think they want to cede jurisdiction to someone else? )

Lyman

Strictly speaking, Lonewolf, it is not "theirs" to "cede".

Imo

Lonewolf_50

Lyman, I see your point, but I was looking at it thusly:

if they assert jurisdiction, someone else has to take the time and effort to show that it isn't theirs.

Conversely, if they don't assert jurisdiction, who has it?

mm43

The following Reuters Article refers to the Cour de Cassation ruling which held the giant French oil company Total responsible in both the criminal and civil domains for damage caused when the Italian oil tanker "Erika" split in two in 1999 and sank off the French coast, but in international waters. The environmental damage was severe, but Total had argued that it had only chartered the vessel and was therefore not responsible.

The judgement helps to confirm the jurisdiction of the French courts where incidents happen in international waters, and which ultimately covers wet leased aircraft registered outside of France, but operating a French airline service.

None of this is directly related to AF447, though it does confirm the jurisdiction the French courts have over this accident.

roulishollandais

Thank you mm43.

International private criminal law :
It is important to have in sight that international cases concerning private actors are judged by national Courts with national laws.The first difficulty is to know if some Court has the competence to judge. The second is to know wich national law must be applied on the case and for the different actors. The third great difficulty is to get effective execution of the decision in another country.
The concept of "Jurisprudence" has generaly no interest, as international cases are very specific. But they are uses who have been established, and who are respected in any country in the world "democratic" or not, "capitalist" or "communist". That does International Law is a reality.
Force of "res judicata" ("force de la chose jugée" in French) does that a country will not judge a second time the same case.
Damage have to be repared : it is an old global law of the trade to be trustful.
Very often the law which is used is not always the law of the state of the Court.
No mention to sworn translators, and lawyers who have to travel from continent to continent..., and the high cost...
The case may be shared in different parts in different countries if special international treaties allow that, like ICAO, IATA conventions, aso.

The intention of Me Soulez-Lariviere concerning the Erika/Total case, and Aviation crashes :
It has been well explained by Me Soulez-Larivière (defending FRANTZEN the Civil Aviation Director), and also some Air France and Airbus lawyers in the Ste-Odile A320 Air Inter Crash (20.jan 1992) I could listen them as I was present at the both trials. Aeronautical crossover Atlantic lobbye hope to change the law,to avoid possibility of criminal charge in the air disasters... As Soulez-Larivière asked it to the Cassation Court. He tried and failed ! Why did he try that?
Remember that Soulez-Larivière became a star lawyer in France since he was the defender of the two DGSE agents who put a bomb on the Greenpeace ship in the Auckland Port. He obtained the false couple Turenge to plaid guilty, and France had to pay some billions to New-Zealand help state secret negociations (and french people have to eat a lot of muttons, and tons of kiwis !). After a time in New-Zealand jails, Mafart and Prieur could fly away toward HAO island for some years. That french typical conspiration story killed a men and destroyed the ship in the Port. It has been said later from well informed sources, that the DGSE's teams had been betrayed by others... Someones said Mafart would not have to phone to a DGSE number. But that helped to consider Prieur as a french agent aswell they officialy had no women... Soulez-Larivière got the benefit to be considered as a specialist of international difficult cases. But that was a Public International Law case...

roulishollandais

BEA did say that ,with some recomandations done to EASA.

BEA added the FAA, as they have seen the EASA certification was depending on FAA certification.

But did the latter depend on Vietname's once by a french DGAC agent as it was the case for A320 systems?

Court will have hard work.

mm43

It is worthwhile pointing out that establishing jurisdiction is essential to France, as France won't necessarily be bound by a judgement of the International Court of Justice.

This was the very reason in the "Rainbow Warrior" case (roulishollandis mentioned), of international terrorism committed by agents of the French state in New Zealand, that NZ sought the mediation of the UN Secretary General, and to which France ultimately agreed to the terms negotiated. There was a technical breach of those terms when the two DGSE agents (under house arrest on Hao Island for 3 years) were repatriated to France a year earlier than agreed due to claimed "ill health".

At the end of the day, all law is the result of political action, and the application of International Law is often open to political rejection when an affected state feels offended.

jcjeant

Hi,

Do not forget the last and extreme resort that is the international justice court of human rights based in Strasbourg
When it is entered and the case is admissible .. it can make (if any) notice very opposite even to that of a supreme court of any country

roulishollandais

-@jcjeant
To go to CEDH (Strasbourg-F) allows Total to get time. But CEDH will never say they had no right to "equitable" justice, which is the only thing they could try to plaid
@mm43
CIJ is the Court for public international law, which is not the case for TOTAL/ERIKA nor AF447 who are concerned with private international law.
Negociated solutions are possible between States in public international law despite criminal cases. So was the Rainbow Warrior case in the second part.
But in french law in national or private international criminal case it is not possible.
(You are right mm43 , France was not loyal with the health problems!!, and was really unloyal with New-Zealand with state terrorism, aswell as international law and relations conception).

It is time that law gets respected everywhere in France to improve air safety. As a french pilot i discovered that since 1980.

CONF iture

But the logic is biased here as in Normal Law the pilot can keep pulling on the stick and still the THS will stop moving further up as speed reaches alpha prot. The system does not permit the pilot to know better, but on known sick data, the system is allowing the pilot to know better by "assisting" him when actually it should simply retract as it did by commanding AP A/THR and FD to withdraw.
Of course it would have stalled, but never to that extent, and with much better chance to get an exit point.
Give a reason why it would be indicated to trim further up approaching the stall or already in it ?

The advantages of Direct Law were significant.
Sophistication helped to set the trap.

CONF iture

There is no need of fundamental autoflight or system design changes, there is a need of transparency or how to call a cat a cat.
The THS behavior and influence in this accident must be detailed, not hidden.
On the sidestick concept, it is a very first time the BEA is commenting, but still, the comment seriously lacks of character.

DozyWannabe

Which is why pilots are trained on the differences between Normal Law and the others.

Actually the system is deferring to the human pilot because it knows that it does not have the information to make that call.

In your opinion.

I know you feel differently, but the fact is that in almost every respect Autotrim is not automation in the same sense as AP and A/THR - it is simply a dumb load-balancing device and does not require the inputs that AP, A/THR and FD do.

Again, that's your opinion. The fact is that the difference related to a matter of seconds, and that proper corrective action on the sidestick would have caused the autotrim to *assist* in recovery if necessary.

The flight control system does not understand "stall" as a concept - we've been through this.

Again - in your opinion.

The THS behaviour *is* precisely detailed in the report. The "influence in this accident" is not proven and simply conjecture on your part.

How so?

Machinbird

Dozy,
I know it has been a long time since you have flown, but did you ever learn how to trim up an aircraft?

You seem to not appreciate the significance of trim in aircraft control, particularly, speed control. In the old days, before everything became automated, that was the foundation for getting an aircraft to behave. It is also one of the skills that can deteriorate with disuse.

DozyWannabe

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this isn't the old days.

Because the flight surfaces do not have force feedback to the PFCs in the Airbus design, trimming the aircraft by feel is not possible in the same way as older designs. This is the main reason why autotrim was developed.

Clandestino pointed out a while back that it can be done visually, but I suspect that you wouldn't want to be doing it all the time.

Machinbird

Dozy,
There is more to the art of trimming than you indicate. It is a two step process. First, get the trim into the ball park (An airbus that hands itself to you should already be in rough trim).

The second step is to make small adjustments to get the final aircraft performance desired (that is the perishable skill part). In the F-4, C-1, A-4, or F-9, it was done with quick clicks on a "Coolie Hat" switch. At that point, you are not so much getting rid of force on the controls as getting an aircraft parameter such as roll rate, rate of climb, or airspeed stabilized. In an aircraft with a trim wheel, it involves small inputs to get the aircraft to fly hands free. You let go of the stick to make the final corrections.

I'll bet that works well in the 'Bus in Direct Law. You would just have to remember what control to use for trimming roll (Rudder trim).

jcjeant

Can be .. but
All men learn in one of three ways:
1. Some learn by being told.
2. Some learn by being shown.
3. Then there are those that learn by experience. They just have to urinate on the electric fence
I think that the men of the AF447 are those of the option N°3 .. but unfortunately they can't anymore use the experience (if any) acquired

DW
That's interesting
Not understanding "stall' is for a "flight control system" a serious mistake
What do you think of a pilot (the human flight control system) who does not understand the concept of "stall" ?
What do you think of the designers of a "flight control system" who do not understand the stall as a concept ?