AF 447 Thread No. 12
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Winnerhofer:
Your link is to the front page of the blog rather than the specific post. I think this is what you're after:
AF 447 : avant le non-lieu : Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien
M. Marnet-Cornus does not specify where this information is coming from as far as I can see. And while I agree with his point that the role played by the apparent slowness in replacing the AA pitot tubes should not be ignored, I can also see why making a strong case against Airbus would be difficult in that regard. Because while the manner of their mandate to replace the pitot tubes left the specifics regarding timing up to the airlines concerned, the fact remains that they did mandate the change and provided materials to the airlines which constituted a workaround for the problem in the interim.
However, this still potentially leaves AF open to answer questions, as it was their timeline for applying the Service Bulletin that meant that particular aircraft did not have the fix applied when it encountered the conditions which blocked the pitot tubes and ultimately crashed.
Your link is to the front page of the blog rather than the specific post. I think this is what you're after:
AF 447 : avant le non-lieu : Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien
M. Marnet-Cornus does not specify where this information is coming from as far as I can see. And while I agree with his point that the role played by the apparent slowness in replacing the AA pitot tubes should not be ignored, I can also see why making a strong case against Airbus would be difficult in that regard. Because while the manner of their mandate to replace the pitot tubes left the specifics regarding timing up to the airlines concerned, the fact remains that they did mandate the change and provided materials to the airlines which constituted a workaround for the problem in the interim.
However, this still potentially leaves AF open to answer questions, as it was their timeline for applying the Service Bulletin that meant that particular aircraft did not have the fix applied when it encountered the conditions which blocked the pitot tubes and ultimately crashed.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 63
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"they did mandate the change"
Well, that's not what is written in the final report pages 142-143.
EASA (not Airbus, not DGAC) has decided in March 2009 that:
That may be a good reason for the Investigative Magistrate not to pursue Airbus.
EASA (not Airbus, not DGAC) has decided in March 2009 that:
QUOTE
at this stage the situation did not mean that a change of Pitot probes on the A 330/340 fleet had to be made mandatory.
UNQUOTE
It means that the status of the SB stayed at the "recommended" level.at this stage the situation did not mean that a change of Pitot probes on the A 330/340 fleet had to be made mandatory.
UNQUOTE
That may be a good reason for the Investigative Magistrate not to pursue Airbus.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, but manufacturers can themselves enforce compliance without needing to involve authorities by including the SB in revised maintenance manuals or instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA). Not sure what the precise status was in this case, but it's fairly clear that Airbus wanted the work done.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 63
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why the SB was "recommended".
That was the farthest the manufacturer could have gone in this situation.
Next level is "mandatory" but then the SB is covered by an AD and it's clearly outside the manufacturer's scope.
That was the farthest the manufacturer could have gone in this situation.
Next level is "mandatory" but then the SB is covered by an AD and it's clearly outside the manufacturer's scope.
Last edited by llagonne66; 26th Jun 2014 at 19:32. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really, I think it's just that any lawyer (for plaintiff, prosecution or defence) will usually only want to argue the strongest possible case - and in this event the case against Airbus isn't as strong as the case against the airline and regulator.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On point 6, the reporter must be unaware that the BEA are compelled to be "neutral" by their own remit. Like other investigative agencies, they can recommend remedies but cannot enforce. And as with other "civil service" agencies like the UK AAIB (but unlike the US NTSB), their remit forbids them from apportioning specific responsibility.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 1st Jul 2014 at 22:09.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will AF be alone in the dock?
Les juges d'instruction "nous ont très fortement laissé entendre qu'Air France et Airbus", mis en examen pour homicides involontaires, "seront renvoyés en correctionnelle, à tel point que c'est pour nous une certitude", a affirmé aux journalistes Me Alain Jakubowicz, l'un des avocats de l'association Entraide et solidarité AF447
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing as a significant chunk of the issues raised by the accident in terms of aviation safety are already being addressed (e.g. stall recovery training), I doubt any delay in the legal process will make a great deal of difference.
I'd also be very wary of making assumptions based on how the legal representatives of the various parties are briefing the media - because they're always going to be somewhat biased in favour of the preferred outcome for those they are representing.
I'd also be very wary of making assumptions based on how the legal representatives of the various parties are briefing the media - because they're always going to be somewhat biased in favour of the preferred outcome for those they are representing.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing as a significant chunk of the issues raised by the accident in terms of aviation safety are already being addressed (e.g. stall recovery training), I doubt any delay in the legal process will make a great deal of difference.
That's the duty of the trial
Aviation safety is the job of the regulators
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 53
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial public release of info
Is evidence in the trial made available to the public or is it all confidentail?
For example if the CVR is admitted as evidence would they release the recording to the public or if they went into the background of the 3 pilots then it would be made public.
For example if the CVR is admitted as evidence would they release the recording to the public or if they went into the background of the 3 pilots then it would be made public.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 66
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is evidence in the trial made available to the public or is it all confidentail?
CVR (transcript) can be requested and produced in the trial
Actual CVR recording (voice) will be not requested unless it's a VERY good reason (full argumented) by the judge ( one case already in a trial in Canada concerning ATC recording if my memory don't fail
)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, M. Marnet-Cornus is not exactly an unbiased source. I'm still bewildered as to how he expects the BEA to have forced a move from the DGAC when it is impossible for them to do so (their remit only allows them to make recommendations - they cannot force changes).
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"France is an old country of Law". She remained cautious to accept
1. The offense of endangering the lives of others
2. Criminal liability of legal persons
3. Crimes committed by the government, Justice, regulators or Elected
4. Crimes recognized by international law
5. Reparation at level of actual damage.
6. Technical negligence to do the best possible at the moment to avoid fatal "errors" and massive deaths, injuries, losses
Consequently, even these points entering the codes in the last decades, the French Judges fear for their careers if they apply the sanctions provided by Law.
At the time of the communication and win-win principles, combinazione with the powerful outweighs the notions of good and evil, to the detriment of victims.
The appeal of Ste Odile showed that DGAC and military air controller lawyers have effectively relied more administrative pathes. It seems to me that the current choice anticipate such a defense, rather than the funds and aviation safety.
1. The offense of endangering the lives of others
2. Criminal liability of legal persons
3. Crimes committed by the government, Justice, regulators or Elected
4. Crimes recognized by international law
5. Reparation at level of actual damage.
6. Technical negligence to do the best possible at the moment to avoid fatal "errors" and massive deaths, injuries, losses
Consequently, even these points entering the codes in the last decades, the French Judges fear for their careers if they apply the sanctions provided by Law.
At the time of the communication and win-win principles, combinazione with the powerful outweighs the notions of good and evil, to the detriment of victims.
The appeal of Ste Odile showed that DGAC and military air controller lawyers have effectively relied more administrative pathes. It seems to me that the current choice anticipate such a defense, rather than the funds and aviation safety.
