[Swissdiver]

@Marcus
Given the fact somebody will have to pay, I guess we will see a lot of “I told you so” kind of things in the future… Judges will have to clarify this… As for the place of Jurisdiction, I think it will be France since we were in international space and the plane was registered in France. But I am not sure…

@Craigwatson
Agree but nevertheless it seriously disturbed the computer… The fact is the pilots could not gain back the control. Would they have been able to do so with a conventional yoke? The BEA will hopefully give us some indications in their final report.

[MartynSinclair]

The airbus 320 crash at an airshow in France – several years ago, was the casue not attributed (in part) to the computer overriding the pilot input. i.e. the “brains” decided that the aircraft was landing, despite the pilot increasing for a go around after a low, slow “display pass”.

[conair346]

Swiss I think you’ve got it.

The French will definitely be making the calls on all aspects of the investigation, and subsequent who’s to blame.

Air accidents can be investigated by the home state of the airline, the state the accident occurred in, the state of departure, state of the nationality any passenger on-board and the home state of the aircraft manufacturer. In this case as it was international waters it could be called by either Brazil (state of departure and passengers) or France (state of airline, manufacture, and passengers).
For instance an Air New Zealand 777 crashes in London – The UK Air Accident Investigation Branch (state of accident), the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission (state of airline) and US National Transport Safety Board (state of manufacture) would all be entitled to investigate, assist and have access to the evidence. Having departed from Hong Kong the Accident Investigation Division of the Civil Aviation Department are also entitled to investigate. This hypothetical accident would be very unlikely to be tampered or fudged with as there are four bodies searching for the cause. Of course it is unlikely that the four nations would send their teams to perform the investigation, they are likely to have an ‘entente cordiale’ to trust each other. The only exception is the NTSB, they always like to get involved seeing as its always America’s fault – either through poor training or manufacture.

Its just easier that the French do it all seeing as they are also the home nation of the airline and manufacturer. Though it could lead to some questionable results; just as in 1988 at Habsheim with AF296 there may be fudging and the pilots put to blame. The evidence was tampered with, the local governor took the black boxes and took about 10 days to hand them to the BEA. It was discovered that the voice recording had been interfered with and jumped and missed at key points!

I made a report on AF296 about the questionable outcome of the investigation – pilot error. This outcome means Air France, nor Airbus are directly to blame – either through poor training, maintenance or design; hence protecting the national interests! For 296 the Captain spoke out against the party line and blamed the brand new aircraft. He lost his job and was discredited on medical grounds. His First Officer kept quiet and kept his job.

I love Airbus but I would rather the truth, than some protectionism by the French authorities.

[pomerol]

Gentlemen

An interesting report on the AF447 crash.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/04/357360/investigators-try-to-explain-crew-reaction-to-af447s.html

[LuganoPirate]

Thanks Conair, I think you’ve very eloquently expressed what my fear is.

I hope, even if they hush things up, they at least address the real problems by sharing them with the manufacturer and airline, and not let their desire for sidestepping the blame result in potentially unsafe aircraft.

[LuganoPirate]

The BEA will hold a press conference at which they will release an interim report on the AF447 accident on Friday July 29th, 1430 Paris time. Let’s hope it throws some real light on the matter.

[CallMeIshmael]

Further to AF447 (Brazil-France) South Atlantic Crash killing all 228.
Poorly trained inexperienced FO’s panic whilst Captain took a break.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020136/Pierre-Cedric-Bonin-David-Robert-blamed-Atlantic-Ocean-Air-France-crash-killed-228.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-29/air-france-crash-probe-puts-focus-on-improving-pilots-emergency-training.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14342877

though AF appear to reject the findings…
A statement from Air France rejected the BEA’s findings, saying that “nothing at this stage can allow the crew’s technical competence to be blamed” for the crash.

… guess we should be thankful for the training and expertise of our Nigels.

[LuganoPirate]

I’m surprised the BEA came out with this conclusion and did not try to blame someone or something non French. Hats off to them for laying the blame at Air France’s door though I suspect the pitot tubes may have had something to do with as well, though it seems even those should have been changed by AF maintenance.

I suppose AF’s reaction is to be expected. For a commercial organisation I cannot see them agreeing to the conclusion. However it’s always easy to blame a pilot if he’s dead. It’s the old “pin it all on him” syndrome.

I continue to avoid AF!

[pomerol]

LuganoPirate

Can I refer you to my post of the 24.05.2011, this has now come full circle.

Whenever France investigates a disaster their is a conflict of interest,
one looking for cause, the other looking for blame, this is not condusive for determining the exact cause, so as to eliminte it ever occuring again.

[Swissdiver]

Is it really credible? Is it really unexpected? The focus is put on the pilots but no answer is given regarding the causes… Nice demonstration of the principal agent problem…

[RichHI1]

There have been a number of incidents recently (last 2-3 years) where crews have fixated on wrong things and ignored stalls or exacerbated them. It is almost as if they cannot believe the instruments can be wrong. Should basic commerical pilot training focus less on increasingly sophisticated Avionics and more on the basics of flight and keeping the plane flying? I perceive a shift from automation making your job safer to automation being the way you do your job.
No, no surprise, Air France never accepts any blame but at least they have not attacked the pilots – yet….

[craigwatson]

richHI1 – one of the first things you are taught while doing your instrument rating is “BELIEVE THE INSTRUMENTS”, I think the only problem with this crash that could be attributed to the aircraft is the fact that below certain speeds the stall warning is inhibited, I think the crew made mistakes, but they were correcting them when they were given misleading information from the aircraft.

[RichHI1]

Craig, I was aware of this which is what prompted my post. What do you do if your airspeed is shown as too high on your Thales made Pitot tube and the stick shaker kicks in? If you say err on the side of caution, you ignore the stick and you will stall, you exceed the safe airspeed and you can compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft. Added to it being night, over water and high altitude in heavy storm? I have enough problem judging speed in a Cessna at 3,000 ft in clear daylight . I would appreciate an informed view such as yours withcommerical heavy experience.

[craigwatson]

unreliable airspeed you fly pitch and power and disregard speed readouts, just like you should do in your cessna as well. Stick shaker comes in you lower the nose, no need to increase power, as at altitude you dont have much to spare anyways, and you can always trade altitude for speed, once clear of the onset of stall set proper attitude (usually between 2 to 5 nose up) and set an appropriate power setting (again somewhere between 80-90% N1 ( this depends on type, altitude, and initial speed, but will be detailed in your manual)).

in your comment above “If you say err on the side of caution, you ignore the stick and you will stall, you exceed the safe airspeed and you can compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft” i would say i would reverse those staements, erring on the side of caution i would action the stick shaker and lower the nose thereby increasing the speed (structural integrity does not really come into it unless you increase your speed lots, your biggest worry would be the onset of buffet, but since your descending you are widening the gap between buffet and stall onset)

[RichHI1]

Thanks a lot, Makes perfect sense, I guess from the comments I had heard about excesive speed I thought there was a smaller envelope between cruising speed at say 410 and maximum rated speed.
I guess it confirms my question why do pilots at altitude pull the nose up in these circumstances as first thing I learned was in a stall lower nose and increase power as both raise air speed.

[Author]

Posts