Roulis, my friend, I trust absolutely *no* newspapers in the world at all! :ok:

@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.

Maybe he do as journalists:
Source protection

"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:It means that the status of the SB stayed at the "recommended" level.
That may be a good reason for the Investigative Magistrate not to pursue Airbus.

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.

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.

Are experts and lawyers managing a trial decision like "Everyone is culprit, so nobody is culprit" (comment of Albert Ducrocq after the Ariane 501 launch crash report) ?

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.

Not sure of that scenario. Other possibilities exist.
Wait and see.

@Winnerhofer:

Any chance of a summary in English for those of us who are, lamentably, not Francophone? :ok:

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.

Hull insurance premiums
 

Maybe they should , but sure the increase is offset by the volume discount, so probably they pay less than smaller and "safer" operators....:(

Catastrophe Rio-Paris: fin de l'enquête

The judges have strongly suggested that Air France and Airbus,will be indicted for manslaughter, it is a certainty for us," he told reporters Alain Jakubowicz, a lawyer for the Mutual Aid Association and solidarity AF447

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.

The trial will be highlighting the issues of security the time of the accident .. and not those present and the trial will try to determine the responsibilities of each and others on the lack of security .. if any
That's the duty of the trial
Aviation safety is the job of the regulators

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.

Nothing confidential in this kind of trial .. until the judge estimate that something must be examined behind closed doors (most unlikely) at the request of any partie
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 :) )

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).

"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.

Is the lawyer Daniel Soulez-Larivière?