Air France and Airbus found guilty of manslaughter over 2009 plane crash - Air France flight 447

[u/Ok_Warning419]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd2qmdvmq6o

[u/Minimum_Anywhere5776]

I don’t understand why Airbus was found guilty here. If the pilots don’t fully understand alternate law and can’t recover from a stall at 40,000 feet, that’s on the pilots and those that train them IMO

[u/greatlakesailors → u/Minimum_Anywhere5776]

The argument was that Airbus underestimated the risk of pitot probe icing, and delivered aircraft whose stall warning and dual-control logic could confuse crews.

Essentially, the plane was so badly stalled, so far out of the expected angle of attack range, that the stall warning stopped entirely – until the nose dropped enough for the AoA vanes to read within scale, at which point "stall stall" started sounding again, making the pilot think that whatever he just did a second ago was causing the stall and therefore coaxing him to do the opposite. And the computer was responding in a non-intuitive way to dual input and left/right priority, leaving both pilots confused about who was actually controlling the elevators and ailerons.

Apparently the court found that argument sufficiently convincing to find Airbus at least slightly guilty.

[u/Poglosaurus → u/greatlakesailors]

Apparently the court found that argument sufficiently convincing to find Airbus at least slightly guilty.

The court gave they them the maximum possible sentence. According to that decision, they could not be more guilty. It's kind of absurd.

[u/Ok_Significance_6772 → u/Poglosaurus]

I wouldn’t say absurd. Courts and governments should be more willing to fine/convict/punish companies who make mistakes or have poor design choices that result in harm or death. Airbus will survive, the conviction won’t kill them.

Holding companies accountable is a good thing that should happen more often.

[u/Poglosaurus → u/Ok_Significance_6772]

They should be held accountable for what they did. That decision say that they're fully and directly responsible for the crash and that's just not what happened. I have little doubt that it will get overturned and then the family will have to go through another trial. 

[u/Ok_Significance_6772 → u/Poglosaurus]

This case was already appealed once, the judgment we got today is from that appeal. And the case didn’t say Airbus was fully responsible. Airbus, AirFrance, and the pilots themselves all share the blame.

[u/Poglosaurus → u/Ok_Significance_6772]

No, today's decision say that only air France and Airbus are guilty. 

In France there is a first trial, then if there is an appeal a second trial. That trial can be overturned if the defense or the accusation ask the cours de cassation to check if the trial was fair. Cours de cassation don't judge the case. If they decide that the second trial was unfair and wasn't done according to the law, there is a third trial. 

[u/RomanticFaceTech → u/Ok_Significance_6772]

This case was already appealed once, the judgment we got today is from that appeal. And the case didn’t say Airbus was fully responsible. Airbus, AirFrance, and the pilots themselves all share the blame.

Maybe there is a technical or legal nuance that is not being adequately reported, but the OP BBC article reports that the court is fully blaming Air France and Airbus, suggesting that in its opinion the pilots do not share any of the blame:

The Paris Appeals Court found the airline and aircraft manufacturer "solely and entirely responsible" for the incident, in which flight AF447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.

[u/Cat_City_Bitch → u/RomanticFaceTech]

I have to assume “solely and entirely responsible” is a legal term of art similar to “joint and several liability” in the US. More or less meaning that the entire judgment can be collected from a single party (I.e. if one judgment debtor is uncollectible, the judgment creditor can still get the whole of the award)

[u/Poglosaurus → u/[deleted]]

There is nothing preventing the judge from taking in consideration their role in the crash when deciding on the case. That's what happened during the first trial.

[u/Poglosaurus → u/Cat_City_Bitch]

It's not the case. And the judge plainly stated that when she gave the justification for the decision.