AF447 (Merged)

… 

For nothing

And incredibly unrealistic end with no, nada, zilch, rien charges sought by the prosecution team:

 

The prosecution did not request any conviction against Airbus and Air France, Wednesday, December 7. He felt that he was “not in a position to request the conviction” of the two companies tried for involuntary homicides after the crash of the Rio-Paris flight, in which 228 people died on June 1, 2009.

The guilt of the companies “seems to him impossible to demonstrate”. “We know that this position will most likely be inaudible to the civil parties,” said the prosecutor in conclusion, to the boos of the families of the victims. In the courtroom, some stood up shouting “lie” or “shame” at the end of the indictment, reports our journalist present at the hearing.

“The prosecution has dishonored itself

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/justice-proces/proces-du-crash…

Just that everyone understands what’s going on here, they are just telling pilots who confronted the same issue, in similar circumstances, on the same type of plane, that their professionalism and courage doesn’t matter.

For what concern airliners, airlines, it’s the same thing: death is an adjustment variable that doesn’t matter at the end. 

Engineers, managers are then irresponsibles for their faulty professionalism or lack of prudence… 

If you have ever wondered where hell should be, geographically, it’s certainly somewhere b/w Rio and Paris… That’s where death and suffering* isn’t worth a french whisper.

*think a minute at the horrendous agony of Af447 passengers, their plane tilted nose up, feeling the sensation of vertical descent like you do in a lifter, plunged in pitch dark that is only interrupted by lightning bolts outside, shaken by turbulences, bracing for impact with the panic rising seconds after seconds…

And now, if it happens to you one day, you would have to compose with this grinding feelings of the  lack of justice that will kill you a thousand time more, somewhere in Paris, France. 

Airbus and Air France would finally be prosecuted after appeal granted:

https://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_rebondissement-dans-le-dossier-du…

EDIT (210828):

Appeal from Airbus and Air France was finally rejected open the possibility for prosecutions

https://www.air-journal.fr/2021-08-27-crash-du-vol-af447-air-france-et-…

French pilot representatives are to appeal a decision to dismiss charges against Airbus over the fatal Air France Airbus A330 accident in the South Atlantic in 2009.

Pilots union SNPL is expressing “indignation” at the judicial decision to drop charges against Airbus, as well as Air France, describing the move as “scandalous”.

Vice-president Vincent Gilles says the union intends to appeal the ruling.

A previous legal recommendation focused on indicting only Air France, rather than Airbus, which drew similar ire from the union.

Victims association FENVAC also says the decision to “exonerate” Airbus was “incomprehensible and unacceptable”.

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/

One thing I will say is that I have read in several magazines and papers on numerous occasions that the whole automation thing is making the pilots less alert in modern cockpits. They do more monitoring than they do flying. They get tired quickly and miss things easier.

Does the A330 has a “joystick shaker”? Is it as loud and obtrusive as the traditional yoke “stick shaker”? Perhaps something like that might have alerted the crew to problems a little sooner?

The automation subject has been the subject of many different documentries, It’s become a common debate if pilots are really in control of modern commercial airliners, or if its actually the computer.
As for the shaker, I remember when i was young, I sat in the cockpit of a Airbus A320, and remember the pilot showing me the joystick that he controlled the plane with, quite small and offset to the right, like the handbrake on a car down the right hand side of the seat (or left hand side for LHD cars)
Reading your point, I’d say that is probably is not as ‘obvious’ as a traditional yoke shaker.
Quite a few accidents involving Airbus aircraft have been due to the confusion over who is actually meant to be doing any given task, such as Air France 296, Indian Airlines 605, Air Inter 148, Armavia 967 to name a few – Where as the amount of incidents involving Boeing aircraft under similar circumstances is much less.
Incorporating technology into aircraft is great, but I personally belive that there is only so much computers should do, over reliance on systems is bound to cause problems.

One thing I will say is that I have read in several magazines and papers on numerous occasions that the whole automation thing is making the pilots less alert in modern cockpits. They do more monitoring than they do flying. They get tired quickly and miss things easier.

Does the A330 has a “joystick shaker”? Is it as loud and obtrusive as the traditional yoke “stick shaker”? Perhaps something like that might have alerted the crew to problems a little sooner?

I tried to say that in another thread. I did computer science at university. Computers are swift idiots. Put a comma in the wrong place (which can lay dormant for ages until a particular event invokes that part of the code) and bingo. Computers also don’t have a seat of the pants. Don’t get me wrong, they are still indispensable in airplanes but like you say an over automated airplane may not be the best thing.

Something I just saw in a new Boeing PR video for their new 767 tanker proposal seems to fit this topic.

There is a scene in the video during a refueling mission, a SAM launch is alerted. The tanker commander orders a break away for the receiving aircraft. He slams what appears to be the throttles (sorry, I’m no 767 pilot) and banks hard to the left.
The script continues:
“With the pilot in full control, unrestricted evasive action is fast, responsive and…(pause for effect) possible.”

I think it fits into what the magazine article seems to be saying…too much automation may not always be the best thing.

That’s for sure.

Leave it to me to ask the tough questions. Seems like a good one.

That’s a can of worms I ain’t willing to open!

Anyone…anyone?

If the Spiegel article is correct, would a less automated/computer controlled aircraft have done any better?

A380.

Blah

Perhaps I just got used to the A380. Anything would seem cramped after that.

I wonder whether mr totty considers the Boeing 757 to be too small for oceanic sectors?

Or, indeed, whether he has compared the dimensions of the ‘small’ A330 with those of that classic intercontinental pioneer, the Boeing 707?

You can’t just say because its ‘smaller’ it does not deem fit to fly long inter-continental routes, according to that hypothesis then business jets should not fly at all!

It’s probably right tio wait until the black boxes have been found and definite conclusions made, but human nature being what it is, speculative articles are bound to happen in the meantime.
As for the A330, it did seem to me to be a very small aircraft in which to fly long ocean sectors (I flew from SIN-BNE and back on one), but I had just got off an A380, so maybe it isn’t as small as it appeared.

Maybe Air France relieve crew practices (from the news paper articles quoted above) might be called into question?

The article doesn’t seem to know and understand anything about Air France crew procedures, gets it all wrong and in any case doesn’t know what happened on board (i.e. no one knows, which makes the article a pile of rubbish as it is not even written in the conditional form).

What I did conclude is that the A330 seems a very small aircraft to be using on the Rio – Paris route or any other long ocean sector. I will not be taking an A330 or equivalently small aircraft across any ocean in future. I’m quite happy to fly long ocean sectors, but only in a B777 upwards, thanks.

Well, I don’t think the A330 is incapable of flying Rio-Paris and barely making it. I flew Heathrow – Sao Paulo which is probably 1000km further and it seemed fine 😉 Very comfortable aircraft

IWhat I did conclude is that the A330 seems a very small aircraft to be using on the Rio – Paris route or any other long ocean sector. I will not be taking an A330 or equivalently small aircraft across any ocean in future. I’m quite happy to fly long ocean sectors, but only in a B777 upwards, thanks.

Mate, I´d like to point you to the following from the links above:

the FAA confirmed that there had been eight such incidents on a Boeing 777

(Talking about iceing on pitot tubes).

IMHO not a good idea to be flying on a 777, then! :rolleyes:

Seriously, guys, wait a bit for the official report. Some are going to say it is biased because it is an Airbus that is involved. Be that as it may.

All aircraft have memory items regarding unreliable airspeed indication. I fly an old dog Airbus, and we have memory items for unreliable airspeed indication. If you have IRS 1 or 3 on line, you have a good chance of salvaging the situation if you are seated in the CM1 position when every thing else is gone. Remember, it looks like they didn´t loose any IRS´s during the incident, but it has not been confirmed by any official accident report.

Maybe Air France relieve crew practices (from the news paper articles quoted above) might be called into question?