Air France, Airbus Guilty of Corporate Manslaughter In 2009 Air France 447 Crash (bbc.com)
- Reference: 0183357528
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/05/23/1840256/air-france-airbus-guilty-of-corporate-manslaughter-in-2009-air-france-447-crash
- Source link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd2qmdvmq6o
> Air France and Airbus have been found guilty of manslaughter over a 2009 plane crash which killed 228 people. 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. The passenger jet stalled during a storm and plunged into the water, killing all on board. A court had previously cleared the companies in April 2023, but they were found guilty on Thursday after an eight-week trial.
>
> Both have repeatedly denied the charges and say they will appeal... The companies have been asked to pay the maximum fine — €225,000 ($261,720; £194,500) each — but some victims' families have criticised the amount as a token penalty...
>
> In 2012, French investigators found a combination of technical failure involving ice in the plane's sensors and the pilots' inability to react to the aircraft stalling led to it plunging into the sea. The captain was on a break when the co-pilots became confused by faulty air-speed readings. They then mistakenly pointed the nose of the plane upwards when it stalled, instead of down. Investigators concluded the co-pilots did not have the training to deal with the situation. Pilot training has since been improved and the speed sensors replaced.
[1] https://www.slashdot.org/~UnknowingFool
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czd2qmdvmq6o
What was the argument against Airbus? (Score:2)
I can see that Air France apparently had a pilot who wanted to fly off into space and stalled the plane, and denied doing that until it was too late, but what was Airbus'es fault? The plane would have survived if the pilot had just let go of the controls...
Re:What was the argument against Airbus? (Score:5, Informative)
Airbus has a flight laws system. That flight laws system which would have told the pilot they were in a stall failed because of ice accumulation during a thunderstorm.
The pilot didn't know they were in the stall because the otherwise highly redundant system which should have warned him didn't work. Given what he could see, the aircraft was losing altitude, so he firewalled the throttles and pointed the nose up. If you don't know your wings aren't generating lift anymore, this isn't an unreasonable reaction.
The captain re-entered the cockpit seconds before they hit the water and figured it out, but it was too late.
Re: (Score:3)
The excerpt here says:
> ...a combination of technical failure involving ice in the plane's sensors and the pilots' inability to react...
So your question seems to be answered, at least in principle. "What was Airbus' fault?" Sensor issues, apparently.
Recall that faulty AOA (Angle Of Attack) sensors and/or related software have also been identified as an issue with previous Boeing crashes.
Re: What was the argument against Airbus? (Score:2)
Airbus's fly-by-wire system meant that the position of the throttle lever indicated a falsehood as to the throttle setting.
Pathetic fines (Score:2)
Irrespective of whether you agree with the findings of the court, a fine of 225k Euros is nothing for the crime of manslaughter. No one is going to face prison time, and the amount of money is rather small.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised at appealing. That will likely cost more than the fine.
Still, not wanting the precedent is a thing.