If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Meanwhile, there can be no reasonable doubt that if this crew had performed as well as the legions of other Airbus crews who have uneventfully encountered and dealt with UAS and loss of autoflight, there would have been no death at all.
I thought crews kind of sucked at following the UAS procedures?
But maybe some of them did go to the effort of not fixing what wasn't broken, and maybe even thinking that robust power and attitude might be an ok thing to rely on.
eloquently put, but partially misguided. you are looking at the event and the players inperfect hindsight. the true test of whether there were vetting deficiencies is their overall performance in the years they were flying before the accident date. it's just waaaaaaayyyyyyy too easy to say "the guy shoulda NEVER been made a commercial pilot after he screws up once in 1000's of flight hours.
only you have the crystal ball evan. only you.
They guys passed some pretty damn rigorous testing to get into that airplane on that day...Why they failed to take four seconds to say: 1) Gemanitly these warnings sound horrible, but the GD plane seems to be flying. 2) Is a relentless pull up a good idea?
eloquently put, but partially misguided. you are looking at the event and the players in perfect hindsight. the true test of whether there were vetting deficiencies is their overall performance in the years they were flying before the accident date. it's just waaaaaaayyyyyyy too easy to say "the guy shoulda NEVER been made a commercial pilot after he screws up once in 1000's of flight hours.
So you think that it should be considered as proven beyond reasonable doubt that Air France is guilty of manslaughter (although, once again, I don't understand how a company or any non-physical person can be guilty of a crime, organizations don't have a mind and intentions on their own, so they don't have the required mens rea, only physical persons with brains do)
Yes, I do. Organizations have collective intentions and collectively commit crimes. In terms of monetary lawsuits, I see no problem with punishing them for this. But we're talking about negligence and manslaughter here, not murder with intent.
First of all, let me define what I will call a 'common critical failure scenario'. These are rare occurrences that still occur frequently enough to warrant inclusion in the 7 or 8 instant recall procedures that major airlines require their pilots to become proficient in performing. These are also failures where proficient procedural performance is critical to the safe conduct of the flight.
UAS is a 'common critical failure scenario'. The real issue is not the loss of speeds but the loss of autoflight and interdependent systems which require two critical pilot actions:
- stabilized manual flight using practiced skills at the given flight level.
- CRM, rehearsed and appropriately performed.
The accident revealed in the flight recorders proves that these pilots failed at both requirements. The further investigation revealed the reason: inadequate pilot training and recurrent sim proficiency appraisals on these scenarios and procedures. It also brings up serious questions about their pilot vetting standards. Human factors are powerful things, but some people are more vulnerable than others.
So, I could turn the question around and ask, did Air France properly prepare this crew for this 'common critical failure scenario' beyond a reasonable doubt? Please. This crew was a flying reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt that they were even pilot material.
If that isn't negligence beyond doubt, I give up. And there can be no reasonable doubt that the flawed performance of this crew was the result of poor skills and training. And there can be no reasonable doubt that this flawed performance caused the death of everybody on board.
Meanwhile, there can be no reasonable doubt that if this crew had performed as well as the legions of other Airbus crews who have uneventfully encountered and dealt with UAS and loss of autoflight, there would have been no death at all.
So you think that it should be considered as proven beyond reasonable doubt that Air France is guilty of manslaughter (although, once again, I don't understand how a company or any non-physical person can be guilty of a crime, organizations don't have a mind and intentions on their own, so they don't have the required mens rea, only physical persons with brains do)
I also think that it is more likely than not (a much lower standard that beyond reasonable doubt) that proper training would have prevented the accident.
You "think"?!
I have no doubt that this accident was the result of inadequate pilot training, pilot appraising and probably pilot vetting. In any case, this crew wasn't equipped to contend with what is normally a transient and uneventful failure scenario in a complex aircraft they did not have the skills to fly manually and did not adequately understand (or yes, 3WE, on a fundamental level, any aircraft).
Brands monetize trust. The passengers on this flight were led to believe that Air France would never let such (non)pilots onto their flight deck. They trusted that they were in safe hands.
Makes sense. We need to distinguish between civil liability and criminal guilt.
Airbus and Air France were facing a possible sentence of 1/4 million dollars in fines. So obviously they did not fight to save the fine but to fight the cause, to avoid a precedent.
The families had nothing material to win either (it is my understanding that the fines were going to be collected by the state, not the relatives of the victims). They also went in for the sentence and precedent.
I am very sorry for the families but I think the verdict is correct. It is hard to say, beyond reasonable doubt, that negligent behavior by Airbus or Air France was a direct causal link in the accident, or hat is the same, that the accident would not have happened had Airbus or Air France acted differently (unlike, for example, with Boeing MCAS accidents, where the direct link is very clear).
I also think that, unless there is foul play involved, going criminally after companies and persons for accidents is detrimental to society, because it creates the culture of hiding mistakes and not collaborating with investigations, rather than bein open and humble about mistakes and try to convert them into lessons for everybody, not just the person who made the mistakes.
On the other hand, I o think that Air France is totally liable for damages. Air France had a duty to transport their passengers safely, and the accident was the result of bad actions (even if honest) by Air France employees, it was not force majeure. I also think that it is more likely than not (a much lower standard that beyond reasonable doubt) that proper training would have prevented the accident. So the victims (or their relatives) were not entitled just to compensatory damages but also to punitive damages. And I think that they got that (the ones that didn't settle the claims out of court).
At the heart of eight weeks of hearings in Paris has been the role of defective so-called Pitot tubes, which are used to measure the flight speed of aircraft.
The pitots were not ‘defective’. They were not robust enough to withstand the marginally understood phenomena of high-altitude ice crystallization experienced in the ITCZ. The replacements were more robust but still vulnerable to failure in these conditions.
The ‘defective’ thing here was CRM. Air France is clearly guilty of insufficient training and safety culture.
Still makes no sense to me. Make the company liable for the civil damages and prosecute the individuals for their crimes?
Possibly. Although I wonder if the strategy might be to go for the low hanging fruit first, and establish criminal culpability on the part of AF using the "simple fault" test, then pursue specific individuals (i.e. "organs") within the organization by showing a direct casual link between their actions and the events of the fateful night? My concern with this approach is that it may end up with merely civil penalties for the individuals, while holding only the organization itself to be criminally liable. Would that really be good use of the prosecution's time? Perhaps in terms of financial penalties. I don't know.
It would be interesting to get the view of someone who has experience with corporate criminal prosecutions. Someone like TeeVee perhaps who, while working in the very different legal domain of the USA, could help explain some of the strategy options that might be available to the prosecution.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Indeed. I went for the 't' handle but hit the 'l' handle by mistake. Bad procedure.
Leave a comment: