Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AF 447 Crash Trial

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AF 447 Crash Trial

    From today's AIAA daily newsletter

    Airbus And Air France Face Crash Trial


    The AP (10/9) reported, “Aviation industry heavyweights Airbus and Air France are charged with manslaughter in a trial that opens Monday over the crash of Flight 447 on June 1, 2009.” The incident, which killed 228 people, was the worst plane crash in Air France history and led to changes in air safety regulations, pilot training, and airspeed sensor use. The companies insist that they are not criminally responsible, and Air France has already financially compensated families. However, judges overruled regulators who argued for dropping the criminal case.

    CBS News (10/10) reports, “Lawyers for the families told reporters it was important to remember that while much of the trial might focus on technical issues that helped doom the flight, it was a human tragedy, and the victims should be at the center of the proceedings.”



  • #2
    “But I’ve been pulling up the whole time”

    The instructor, Viktoria Ljungman, 23, played tennis at Hampton University and dreamed of becoming a commercial pilot, her former coach said.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      AIAA daily newsletter, we must be in the same industry! I missed the new as I didn't really scoll the newsletter all the way to the bottom.

      I hope this trial is going to settle everyone.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
        From today's AIAA daily newsletter

        Airbus And Air France Face Crash Trial


        The AP (10/9) reported, “Aviation industry heavyweights Airbus and Air France are charged with manslaughter in a trial that opens Monday over the crash of Flight 447...
        100% pilot error. 100% operator negligence. But, to the lowbrow opportunistic legal practitioner, you can't get the stink of money off this even after 13 years.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan View Post

          100% pilot error. 100% operator negligence. But, to the lowbrow opportunistic legal practitioner, you can't get the stink of money off this even after 13 years.
          I don't think so. I am not familiar with the French justice system but manslaughter is a criminal charge, not a civil one. If the companies are found guilty a big fine may be imposed, but I don't think that this is going as compensation for victims.

          Or you mean money for the lawyers? But for whom? Obviously the Air France and Airbus lawyers are not the one promoting this, and since this is a criminal case, not a civil one, the accusatory part should be the prosecutor, not the lawyer of some party.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

            I don't think so. I am not familiar with the French justice system but manslaughter is a criminal charge, not a civil one. If the companies are found guilty a big fine may be imposed, but I don't think that this is going as compensation for victims.

            Or you mean money for the lawyers? But for whom? Obviously the Air France and Airbus lawyers are not the one promoting this, and since this is a criminal case, not a civil one, the accusatory part should be the prosecutor, not the lawyer of some party.

            100% pilot error. 100% operator negligence. But, to the lowbrow populist politician, you can't get the political currency off this even after 13 years.

            Fixed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

              I don't think so. I am not familiar with the French justice system but manslaughter is a criminal charge, not a civil one. If the companies are found guilty a big fine may be imposed, but I don't think that this is going as compensation for victims.

              Or you mean money for the lawyers? But for whom? Obviously the Air France and Airbus lawyers are not the one promoting this, and since this is a criminal case, not a civil one, the accusatory part should be the prosecutor, not the lawyer of some party.
              This is the same France that convicted and then cleared CO and a particular mechanic for the Concorde crash, so...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Evan View Post


                But, to the lowbrow populist politician..
                Is there another kind?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Just saying that I don't think they are pressing criminal charges for money. Yes, France is a country that is known to press criminal charges on aviation accidents, which of course is a practice I don't agree in most cases. Just saying that I don't think there is money to be gained. Not at least directly.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just saying there is a motivation here that has nothing to do with justice based on the findings of the investigation. But France is a country known for such theatrics.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Just saying that relentless pull ups tend to stall a wide range of aircraft.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        funny (or sad), that evan who constantly rants on about how the "system" fails and how airline culture and lack of safety culture is behind a lot of accidents, yet now somehow claims that this criminal trial which includes air france as a named defendant, is somehow theatrics.

                        if my time were worth far less than it is (even my spare time), i would sift through the AF447 main thread and dig out evan's posts about how while the pilots clearly effed up, air france's training, or lack thereof, was to blame as well.

                        no, it is not likely anyone will go to jail no matter what is uncovered in this case, but maybe, just maybe, if it becomes publicly known that a particular person or group of persons, aside from the pilots, were responsible, the trial will do some good. the opposite, like what happens in this corrupt country, is that the people on top, the ones ultimately responsible, never get charged.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Couple of comments... There is a tension in accident investigations. Punishing the liable parties has never worked to reduce the accident rate. Rather the opposite, it tended to create a culture of not admitting responsibility, hiding information and not collaborating with the investigation, which in turn leads to lessons not being learned and future accidents not being prevented.

                          I think that that is one of the reasons why the safety culture and the safety results in France are worse than in the USA, UK, Germany, etc...

                          In the case of AF447, I do think that there is a criminal responsibility from AF, and even possibly from the regulator. But I think it is not constructive for safety to pursue criminal charges.

                          Yes, it might help Air France learn the lesson this time. But part of the lesson (for Air France and others) would be never collaborate with investigations again and hide any error or deviation instead of showcasing it.

                          And as a side note, I don't know if in France organizations (juridical persons) can be criminally charged. Not in Argentina. Human persons that serve a role in an organization can be criminally charged, though. For example, in a case like AF447, Air France could not be charged with manslaughter. But the chief instructor, operator's director, CEO, etc, might, if they were criminally negligent by act or omission in their functions. Although I think that in a case like AF447 they would not be found guilty since Air France's training (and lack thereof) met the regulator's requirement. It would be like being charged for driving dangerously fast in a highway when you didn't exceed the max speed.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            But part of the lesson (for Air France and others) would be never collaborate with investigations again and hide any error or deviation instead of showcasing it.
                            and that would be grounds for revoking their certificate to operate. period. hard stop.

                            i was involved in the civil side of criminal matter some years ago. in the criminal case, the judge asked the prosecutor why he had only charged the corporation. she said publicly, "if i ultimately find the company guilty, how do i sentence it? we all know that companies act through their officers and directors. how come none of them were charged when it is obvious to everyone who actually acted?"

                            i agree with her sentiment. sure, charge the corporation criminally, but at some point the results have to include a human that pays the price for the crime committed. if the human(s) cant be identified beyond a reasonable doubt, then the case should go nowhere.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              and that would be grounds for revoking their certificate to operate. period. hard stop.
                              Ha ha ha... you are funny. It "should" but "won't". Welcome to the world.

                              i was involved in the civil side of criminal matter some years ago. in the criminal case, the judge asked the prosecutor why he had only charged the corporation. she said publicly, "if i ultimately find the company guilty, how do i sentence it? we all know that companies act through their officers and directors. how come none of them were charged when it is obvious to everyone who actually acted?"

                              i agree with her sentiment. sure, charge the corporation criminally, but at some point the results have to include a human that pays the price for the crime committed. if the human(s) cant be identified beyond a reasonable doubt, then the case should go nowhere.
                              And that is precisely why in Argentina you can't charge an organization with a crime. Things like manslaughter, murder, causing injuries (don't know the name of that crime in English), endangering a flight, etc... don't have a fines penalty option, only jail time (in Argentina). How do you jail Air France? Organizations don't commit crimes. Peoples in organizations do. And when people organize themselves to commit crimes (making a whole organization itself "criminal"), that is a crime in itself called "Illegal Association" which I think translates to "criminal enterprise" or "conspiracy".

                              Now, all that said, regardless how things should work and personal opinions and positions, reality has shown that at least for aviation safety it works better not to press criminal charges on people upon accidents except in really outrageous cases where people acted really with a criminal mens rea (at least criminal negligence: intentionally acting irresponsibly with conscious disregard for life and safety). Like Boeing and the MCAS. Or as what SHOULD have happened there. Because no person (human) was charged with anything and just a symbolic fine was imposed to the company, in exchange to not pressing criminal charges on the TOP MANAGEMENT (but by all means be my friend and charge Forkner). Deal that was agreed by a prosecutor that, after signing this deal, quit her prosecutor position and went to work to the law firm that represented Boeing in this deal.

                              How is THAT not a crime????

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X