Air France and Airbus found guilty of manslaughter over 2009 plane crash - Air France flight 447
Posted by Ok_Warning419@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 226 comments
PorQuepin3@reddit
This crash always makes me so sad. Plunging out of the sky from 40k feet sound terrifying in the middle of the night. Seems like it could have been recoverable if one understands physics at minimum or had appropriate training. And the sticks weren't synced on this model? Is that right? (Lay person here)
exytuu@reddit
If it makes you feel better, the investigators believed that the passengers didn’t know what was happening
jonbristow@reddit
Literally horror scenario, my worst nightmare
talldangry@reddit
Also a layperson, it's really baffling and extremely sad - AF never should have let the copilot near a plane, and none of the crew or passengers deserved to die like that. How to combat a stall is something that even non-sim games will teach - 95% sure it was Battlefield 1942 that taught me that and not FS2000. I cannot imagine a world where Airbus doesn't shrug off these charges.
AverseAphid@reddit
I don't understand how this conclusion can reached at all. Bonin was an idiot who should have never been allowed in a cockpit, the automation barely made a difference. This really blurs the line where you start blaming the manufacturer over the pilot
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
Side sticks averaging themselves out when getting conflicting commands is fucking insane
twilighttwister@reddit
It's not great, but what better solution is there? If you prioritise one over the other you're going to be wrong half the time.
The only thing I can think is to make it even more obvious to the pilots that it's happening, perhaps with something more haptic rather than just sound and lights.
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
Force feedback.
If you're getting conflicting inputs then let the strongest pilot win.
The fact that one pilot could nosedive and the other one could pull back all the way and the plane would do fucking nothing is insane
Connect the inputs or do some kind of stick shaker feature if the inputs are off more than a certain percentage
p4intball3r@reddit
Why? One of these pilots will kill everyone on board almost by definition. Clearly both have some reason to believe they're making the right decision, so what do you expect the plane to do as a rule?
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
One pilot can kill everyone on board by averaging them out too...
Ask me how I know this
bankkopf@reddit
Physically connect the side sticks and make them move synchronously? Makes it pretty clear that the other pilot is moving the stick.
atooraya@reddit
You just hold the priority button and it knocks the other stick out. It isn’t intended to be flown like that.
Your FO is flying and then seizes on the controls and goes full nose forward. You say “my controls” and pull back. Airplane initially brings the nose up but senses both controls being manipulated so it averages them out because it’s unsure who’s supposed to be flying the plane. Then it barks “dual input” because you two can’t figure out who’s flying. Then you hold the the priority button to tell the airplane who to honor.
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
Or just connect the inputs
Regardless averaging them out is like the most insane approach to the problem.
Former_Promotion_701@reddit
What does connecting the inputs even mean?
spazturtle@reddit
On Airbus they don't average, they add together. So 50% on one stick and -50% on another is 0% whilst 50% on both sticks is 100%.
On Boeing they average, as seen in this 2022 incident involving a Air France 777 where the captain and first officer moved the yokes in opposite directions: https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30863-air-france-boeing-777-incident-bea-update
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
I thought they were mechanically linked
LanceLynxx@reddit
How would you solve this
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
Connect the inputs. Force feedback.
Regardless averaging out the inputs is like craziest way to do it.
LanceLynxx@reddit
It's FBW. How do you connect the inputs?
FF would add another layer of possible failure nodes and extra complexity which is not necessary.
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
Sounds like they should be mechanically connected then
LanceLynxx@reddit
Why, when the problem isn't the plane, but the pilot?
KS_Gaming@reddit
How's that adding complexity when both pilots are basically now working with a single stick? Sounds like less complexity than having them get averaged if anything.
Which-Scientist-8161@reddit
The first officer wasn't an idiot. He just had poor training. The whole crew had poor training. The captain left the cockpit without assigning anyone in charge or making it clear.
The FO likely was very stressed that he didn't realize he was pulling instead of pushing. Remember this all happened in a very short time and the human brain can only take so much information and alerts.
silver-fusion@reddit
Airbus and Air France share the training responsibilities.
The Captain was unaware thay Bonin was pulling back on the sticks until Bonin said "I've been pulling back the whole time". Of course, by that point it was far too late. In cases of civil liability it's not too challenging to make the argument that the system should be clearer, particularly given the evidence of some prior near misses and inaction.
TheRealLeakycheese@reddit
Well, this is awkward...
Hot-Job-6281@reddit
If anything, it's genius work by the algorithm.
Surely that's sparking a conversation to consider taking rail from UK to EU instead of flights.
Professional_Low_646@reddit
Wait - a trained pilot somehow not realizing that it’s physically impossible to keep overspeeding an aircraft while pitching all the way up is now the manufacturer‘s fault? A trained pilot who has undoubtedly had CRM courses not letting go when the other crew member says „my controls“ is the fault of the airline? Like the second part in particular should be hammered into everyone flying in a multicrew environment so solidly, you‘d have to have a seizure to not react instinctively.
I‘m all for corporate liability where it‘s warranted, but this is way over the top.
YourLizardOverlord@reddit
From the CVR transcript the First Officer basically said: I don't understand why we are falling so fast. I'm pulling the stick back as far as it will go. I still don't get why his brain didn't scream at him: Stall.
He flew gliders in his spare time too. Just baffling.
Big-Lawyer-3444@reddit
My impression of this was that the AP alternate law rules were simply too complex and subtle for a human mind to process correctly in an emergency. Flying on AP could have allowed them to become disconnected from what the plane was physically doing, so when alarms started going off and controls started behaving weirdly it would have been extremely hard to build a correct mental model of what was going on and how to fix it. For example:
- 2 pilots had controls, each using a their own possibly incorrect mental model to decide what inputs to make
- if the plane's speed went below 65kts the AP assumed the sensor was incorrect and the alarm sound changed, possibly causing the PF to believe his inputs were working when they weren't
Remember that the pilots were suddenly thrown into a situation where the plane was going down, alarms were blaring, and they were getting very confusing feedback from the plane and didn't know which sensors were working and which weren't. It seems to me that recovering from this would have required correctly solving a series of subtle and unintuitive logic puzzles, involving detailed knowledge of the AP's logic and possibly the other pilots' mental models, which themselves include their knowledge of the AP, under extreme stress.
Professional_Low_646@reddit
I‘m not faulting them for being out of their depth initially. Over the ocean, in the middle of the night, in severe weather, with the aircraft acting up all of a sudden - it’s an extremely challenging scenario.
What I‘m faulting them for is a) not reverting to the most basic aerodynamic principles - like not continuing to pitch up in an attempt to bleed off speed that according to simple physics just cannot be there, regardless of what the PFD says. And b) not coordinating who was actually flying. The tragedy is that one of the pilots realized they should be pushing the nose down, took control, verbally announced his doing so - and the other guy simply kept on pulling up.
Airbus‘ design philosophy with the sidesticks not moving in sync certainly didn’t help, neither did the complexities of Alternate Law, yet none of it would have caused the crash if the crew had had a more solid understanding of basic physics and, most importantly, had adhered to one of the more simple teachings of CRM.
jonbristow@reddit
If your bank account gets hacked and money is stolen because their IT is shit, dont you think the bank has to pay?
Baud_Olofsson@reddit
The airline trained and approved them. A pilot's competence - or in this case, lack thereof - is ultimately the responsibility of the airline.
Professional_Low_646@reddit
I learned that sort of shit during like my first five hours of flying lessons, loooong before an airline usually (yes ik there are sponsored programs) gets a hold of a pilot.
Minimum_Anywhere5776@reddit
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
sofixa11@reddit
It was 1 out of 3 pilots that didn't understand. The other two correctly identified what needs to be done, did so, and communicated it. The third one was in panic mode and not listening to them.
VegaJuniper@reddit
They didn't actually. Right before the impact, all three of the pilots we're calling for pitch up, indicating that none of them really had a firm idea of what was going on.
There was kind of a perverse situation going on that the pitch was so extreme that the flight computer silenced the stall warning because the situation should have been impossible. Whenever the pilots pitched down, which was the correct thing to do, the computer started getting reliable readings again and stall warning started blaring. They instinctively pitched back up, and the stall warning went away.
The fact that pitching down caused a stall warning and pitching up made it go away, the opposite of what should happen, just thoroughly messed up any sense they had of what the plane was doing.
eugeniusbastard@reddit
Yeah, right before impact. As in nothing could save them at that point, pulling up was basically just a involuntary reaction because pushing the nose down wasn't going to save them either. The main captain sitting behind them said "go on then, pull up" almost sarcastically, he knew it was hopeless and was just resigned to their fate. In his head he was probably internally screaming at the idiot Bonin and resisting the urge to say out loud that he killed them all.
sofixa11@reddit
Nope, it was only one of them, the other copilot was trying to recover from the stall, and when the captain came in (he was on a break) he initially called for a pitch up, but when the pilot causing the stall said he's been doing that since the start, he realised what's happening and called for a pitch down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
VegaJuniper@reddit
Yes he did momentarily, but later, right before the impact they'd all reverted to pitch up.
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
Sounds like
greatlakesailors@reddit
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.
Several-Eggplant4460@reddit
Meanwhile Boeing avoided a lawsuit on the 737 Max. Lol
studpilot69@reddit
What? No they didn’t.
Arizona_Pete@reddit
You could make a case that the alternate law settings, the way the plane communicated and acted upon dual inputs, and the way the pitot tubes were engineered all lead to the crash.
Wyciorek@reddit
Both visual and aural 'dual input' warnings?
Kai-ni@reddit
No, the math of how it responds to dual inputs. It averages them.
Wyciorek@reddit
What should it do? Take a random input, subtract them, something else?
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
It should have force feedback and have them linked together so you know the other dude is doing the opposite of you
harrythefurrysquid@reddit
Or the pilots end up fighting each other, as has happened on Boeing aircraft.
Fundamentally this isn't a "control it by feel" controller - it's an analogue command input.
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
At least they would know they're fighting each other
Ok-Insurance-9456@reddit
In an ideal world they should be linked and move together. Feels like Airbus is stuck neither here or there with pressure to maintain commonality with their mistakes from the 1980s.
Wyciorek@reddit
That also does not necessarily prevent dual input: https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_upload/F-GSQJ_finalreport_EN.pdf . And you get no priority override button
Kai-ni@reddit
I'm not making commentary of what it should do, I'm just answering your question.
tracernz@reddit
It doesn’t average them. It adds them together.
BluePrintSpec@reddit
"Average" and "add" are essentially the same thing here, except one is 2x the other. For this discussion, that's the same thing.
tracernz@reddit
If the argument is “the math of how it responds to dual inputs” then getting the math wrong isn’t great. Average and algebraic addition have very different results when the inputs have the same sign which is why I added an example.
BluePrintSpec@reddit
Average: (A+B)/2 Sum: A+B
The only difference is a gain of 2. There are other gains in the command path. The factor of 2 gets combined with these.
tracernz@reddit
Yes, that’s the example I gave. And pointing out that it’s factually incorrect does not detract from the discussion. Reddit has threading for exactly this.
ZippyDan@reddit
No, one input is the base, the other input becomes the exponent.
_PROBABLY_CORRECT@reddit
Who in the world thought that was a good idea??
DinkleBottoms@reddit
Wasn’t that implemented after the crash?
Wild-Video-5317@reddit
The wikipedia article on the crash suggests the audible warning was implemented on the accident airframe, but is superseded by higher priority warnings.
ThePhyseter@reddit
And nobody is looking for the visual warning when they are stalling and panicking and trying to figure out what the plane is even doing.
The dual inputs warning should be a stick shaker or some other tactile feedback on the stick. Maybe link the sticks
antesocial@reddit
Aural dual input warning was superceded by stall warning.
railker@reddit
One of the findings from the final report that could sit as a design issue was that, "no failure message on the ECAM clearly indicates the detection by the system of an inconsistency in measured airspeeds" and also the lack of an AoA visual indication to the pilots that might have helped understand their stall warning situation.
FalconDriver85@reddit
The pilot responsibility could fall under the “not enough training” reason and Air France could be considered guilty, I could understand that, but Airbus? I can’t understand the reason behind that…
NaiveRevolution9072@reddit
If I remember correctly, it was AF447 that lead to Airbus implementing the Dual Input warning and sidestick priority. I guess they're found guilty because these risks were foreseeable and measures to mitigate them should have been added sooner.
Then again, it wasn't found necessary by the regulating authorities at the time, so blame them too right
sofixa11@reddit
No, the dual input warning was already there, but the stall chime has a higher priority.
BroasisMusic@reddit
Same with the GPWS. I was watching a mentour pilot episode earlier where the pilots didn't get the dual input warning because a gpws warning had priority.
CaptchaReallySucks@reddit
This is so insanely wrong it’s hilarious it has 170 upvotes. Holy shit
marenicolor@reddit
Ppl upvoting purely based on vibes. I wouldn't be surprised if they based their comment on info from ChatGPT.
NaiveRevolution9072@reddit
No I was just straight up wrong lol, I can't control what other people upvote
L0LTHED0G@reddit
You control strike-through text and/or deleting the incorrect parts, leaving the edit of "My bad, this comment was wrong" though.
blastcat4@reddit
You can still delete your original comment.
NaiveRevolution9072@reddit
I made an edit that I think says enough
Jazzlike_Climate4189@reddit
And they won’t even remove it or do a strike through
marenicolor@reddit
Turns out, you did not remember correctly
NaiveRevolution9072@reddit
Good to know lmao
Gluecksritter90@reddit
It's always amazing that you just need to confidently state bullshit and r/aviation will upvote it. Same as with the recent runway excursion.
railker@reddit
We do have a final report, priority and dual input were both recorded by the FDR and/or CVR multiple times.
The big outcome I remember from this was Upset Recovery Training, and of course an acceleration of replacing the pitot tubes.
carrickshairline@reddit
Sidestick priority was introduced with the A320 program in the 80s.
ExpiredPilot@reddit
Airbus trains the pilots
redcurrantevents@reddit
Do they, in France? I didn’t know that. Here in the states it is the airlines, not the manufacturers. And in the states, the FAA approves the training programs. The airlines will use materials from the manufacturers to create their training programs, but if you fly in the flight deck of different US carriers flying the same airplane, you see they do things quite differently.
Emotional-Ad-6494@reddit
I think in Toulouse?
jacksjj@reddit
Initially. But there are Airbus facilities worldwide. Miami, for example.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Airbus has an ATO (Approved Training Organisation), just like Boeing has one.
Some airlines sometimes send their pilots for type rating directly to Boeing, Airbus or other third party ATOs, if they don't have enough training capacity in house.
jacksjj@reddit
US Airline Airbus Instructor here:
We send our “initial cadre” of instructors to Airbus to receive training on the aircraft.
Concurrently, we use Airbus’ documents to create an AQP training program suited to our airline and our procedures.
Then, we train the rest of the first set of instructors - who then train the pilots, in our simulators.
It continues this way in initial, transition and recurrent training unless we do not have simulator capacity for our pilots. Then, sometimes, we will rent manufacturer simulator time to train our pilots, but still using our instructors.
TheMusicArchivist@reddit
Throwing a billion loud warnings at a pilot means that none of them are heeded and the pilots simply panic all the way into the ocean.
DaBingeGirl@reddit
Most pilots at that level don't panic. This is a unique case and more of a mental health issue, coupled with the stupid side stick design.
Sensitive_snausage@reddit
I would put it more on air France for hiring a pilot unfamiliar with stall recovery…
748aef305@reddit
Right, and who do you suppose "designs" (and thus, directly or indirectly) sells airlines their training program, requirements, etc?
You can absolutely say AF or any other airline should "go above and beyond" when able, but they're literally buying the training program and likely even schedule, instructors, sim time, etc, from Airbus themselves.
SituationalAnanas@reddit
Airbus said and trained the pilots so that the plane cannot stall. Also stall warning shut off below 90kts ias.
propell0r@reddit
Also above 30 degrees AoA. Which I mean, to an Airbus engineer, has some sensibility in why would an A330 ever be above 30 degrees AoA. But AF447 was. So when the FO tried the normal stall recovery by lowering the nose, the stall warning came back as they went below 30 degree. So in his panicked mind, lowering the nose is stalling the aircraft, pulling it up isn’t. When physically the opposite was happening.
I can see that engineering logic directing some blame towards Airbus
GravitasFailures@reddit
The stick-shaker?
That seems really counter-intuitive.
Also when you’re past 30 aoa the attitude/horizon should be flashing or something, that’s not something that should be subtle, and losing situational awareness of attitude without external reference is probably the most deadly thing that can happen to a pilot.
propell0r@reddit
Everything. The audio, the stick shaker, all the stall warnings would go away.
The PFD will declutter above a certain pitch angle, but anything associated to a stall was programmed to stop above 30 degrees AoA
GravitasFailures@reddit
That… that defeats a lot of purposes. At that point you definitely should have an audible AoA warning then, because this was an airliner, not the Blue Angels on display.
yeahalrightgoon@reddit
Feels like a bit of design induced pilot error thrown into the mix.
GravitasFailures@reddit
Wait, the stick-shaker? That kind of defeats the purpose no?
Twitter_2006@reddit
Agreed.
G25777K@reddit
Airbus is most likely guilty by association,AF are the real culprits, shit training and the pilots didn’t under the basic fundamentals of flying, IMO that’s on AF, and now they will drag it on another 10 years in appeals. Fuckers can’t just own up and say we’re sorry and pay out.
ltjpunk387@reddit
Probably the control priority issue. IIRC, the CA was commanding nose down with his stick to recover, but the FO was commanding nose up, continuing the stall. Neither the plane nor the crew had a proper way to prioritize one stick over the other. I forget the exact details. This could easily be ruled as a design fault and found Airbus some blame.
Didn't this all start from pitot icing too? Maybe Airbus had some blame in the inability to clear the ice?
capn_starsky@reddit
The aircraft does have a proper way to prioritize which side stick controls, it was just not utilized until too late towards the very end.
mduell@reddit
Replace Airbus with Boeing and recover a stall with stab cutout, etc it’s just how the world feels about aircraft manufacturers these days.
Wompie@reddit
I wish people were more open to punishing trillion dollar organizations for mistakes.
mosaic-aircraft@reddit
Don't Airbus have a hand in training? The report in the Guardian mentions previous failings. I can only assume that's to do with training between Airbus and Air France (and maybe other carriers too).
critbuild@reddit
https://simpleflying.com/airbus-air-france-not-guilty-af-447-manslaughter/
ErrorProfessional143@reddit
Airbus probably has deeper pockets than AirFrance.
Roadwarriordude@reddit
Airbus trains the pilots.
dr_b_chungus@reddit
That would be Airbus and Air France.
Volkov_Afanasei@reddit
I'm curious how they reached that ruling; the actions of the copilot were really 95% of it. The only thing the plane did wrong was develop some frozen pitot tunes, and even that was debatably because they climbed several thousand feet above cruising for weather
Fire_Otter@reddit
Prosecutors, however, focused their attention on alleged failures inside both the planemaker and airline. Those included poor training and failing to follow up on earlier incidents. - Reuters
But the trial focused on earlier problems with the same type of sensor as well as alleged shortcomings in data-sharing and training that prosecutors say indirectly caused the crash.
In closing arguments, Air France paid tribute to bereaved families and denied claims the crew was poorly trained in dealing with stalls or emergencies at high altitude.
Airbus, however, echoed the findings of French civil accident investigators who had previously questioned the crew's response to the loss of data and a failure to follow procedures. -Reuters
Ecthelion-O-Fountain@reddit
Even after this accident, I would run into airbus pilots that were absolutely convinced that you could not stall an airbus. And some of that culturally comes from the training that was received from the manufacturer when the type gets put into service at each airline. The real problem here though is, we’re having criminal liability for safety problems. This discourages, disclosing, safety knowledge and especially errors which holds back improvements and safety from happening because people have to pretend that nothing’s wrong. Non-punitive safety cultures should reign supreme everywhere except in cases of deliberate action or gross negligence. I feel like this is the only thing that we actually did the best in the United States, but that era is coming to an end because our politicians want to be able to point fingers now when there’s an accident.
p4intball3r@reddit
Where did you run into an airbus pilot that was convinced you can't stall an airbus in alternate law.
Someone arguing that you can't stall it in normal law is pretty much as close to correct as you can get for such a simple statement. But no one would suggest that you can't stall it in alternate law, since the alphamax being lost is the most fundamental change in this configuration.
ResearchInformal8018@reddit
It does seem odd, though courts don’t always get decisions with a lot of technical details right. Frozen pitot tubes were a known issue, but a pretty minor one that should never have led to this crash.
twilighttwister@reddit
Don't always? More like rarely do.
Courts aren't really capable at deciding technicalities or that sort of objective truth. They decide arguments between people.
rand0m_g1rl@reddit
Air France employed the copilot. I imagine they have some responsibility of crews actions.
FoxKamp7785@reddit
But then how will they pay the stock holders of their stock price drops?
Itchy-Tourist8585@reddit
Mach=sqrt(gammaRT) If you suddenly enter in a very cold air mass, the speed of sound is lower, you get a critical mach number. Now try to play this scenario in your head instead of swallowing the "dumb pilot pulling the stick" rhetoric.
Volkov_Afanasei@reddit
Pulling your sidestick back during the entirety of a fall from cruising altitude when all that was needed to recover was to put the nose down and regain airspeed is the definition of "dumb pilot pulling the stick."
Mike__O@reddit
Details in the article are scarce. If I was building a case against Airbus, I'd focus heavily on the automation. Airbus markets their airplanes as "just let the automation do it" and it can lead to some very bad habits.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
If it’s tied back to the earlier cases then I believe it was around training and the lackadaisical response to replacing the faulty Thales pitot tubes.
railker@reddit
Normally I'd agree, the pitot tubes were a highlight, but scrolling through the findings summary of the crash in the final report the investigators noted that while Airbus and Air France were replacing them, EASA declined to make it mandatory and the pitot tubes on the aircraft "met requirements that were stricter than certification standards."
spazturtle@reddit
But if they had let the automation do it them the crash would not have happened. Once the pitot tube error cleared they could have just switched back to normal law and taken their hands off the controls and the aircraft would have recovered.
satellite779@reddit
Did they even know pitot tubes cleared and when? I think they were under impression air speed was wrong from the moment AP switched off to the moment they crashed.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Which is where the poor training component comes in. Crashes are (almost) never caused by one single failure.
Airbus/Thales produced a faulty product that they knew was faulty and the remediation plan was insufficient. However, it was a known issue yet Air France failed to properly train its crews to respond.
Blothorn@reddit
The switch of flight models probably played a role—Airbus pilots get very little time flying with the alternate flight rules outside of simulators, and manufacturers have some role in defining training standards. The stall warning cutting out at high AoA also certainly seems like a design flaw—it means that in a situation such as this pulling back on the stick silences the alarm while pushing forward triggers it, despite pushing forward being the precise thing you need to do.
namedotnumber666@reddit
I guess airbus were aware of the mode confusion with the fly by wire system ( I hope I’m talking about the same event ) that confusion caused them to think the stall voice errors were a mistake. The software should probably announce the change in fly by wire mode so the pilots can realise the reality of their situation
assblast420@reddit
If a crash is caused by a lack of experience/poor decision making by the pilots, then the responsibility is on the training and supervision since it clearly wasn't good enough to prevent an accident.
dubov@reddit
If multiple pilots would have struggled in that situation then the training was insufficient, but this was an individual shortcoming
assblast420@reddit
In response to the accident report, Airbus changed the stall warning logic, updated the fly-by-wire automation software, and revised their flight crew operating manuals regarding high-altitude stall recovery.
So clearly this was more than an individual shortcoming, if it was deemed important enough to make changes to training and systems. If not, they would've just blamed the pilots, labeled it simple "pilot error," and left everything else as it was.
JoeBagadonut@reddit
My understanding is that alarms in the cockpit overriding each other further added to the confusion of what was happening.
Lead_resource@reddit
Is Boeing going to get the same treatment from now on too?
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
What for? The consent agreement was in lieu of a lengthy criminal trial and in exchange Boeing agreed to pay billions and accept additional oversight and production restrictions.
fpsnoob89@reddit
For their leadership willingly making a decision to take shortcuts which directly caused many lives to be lost, all for profits. The company may have paid the price, but the people who made those decisions didn't.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Okay…but they were offered and took a plea deal in exchange for not being prosecuted. That’s how that works.
Instead of spending two decades in court the government was able to force Boeing to immediately compensate victims and agree to additional oversight. I’m not sure why so many of you are convinced Boeing got off Scott free.
catsby90bbn@reddit
Has zero to do with AF 447.
HolyBonobos@reddit
It's about the precedent of criminal liability for manufacturers.
KnowledgeSafe3160@reddit
I’m curious. You want Boeing to be found guilty? For the max stuff? Nothing will happen when they’re found guilty. Here they are being asked to pay 250k as the sentence.
Boeing dropped the criminal charges for agreeing to pay 1.1 billion for the 2 crashes that happened.
HolyBonobos@reddit
I made no claims as to the guilt or innocence of Boeing. I was clarifying why the comment about Boeing would be relevant to the story about the ruling against Airbus.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
But the reason they didn’t face criminal charges is because they agreed to a suspension of prosecution and a whole host of fines and other restrictions.
Airbus and Air France chose to fight. You can’t compare the two because they took completely opposite paths.
HolyBonobos@reddit
Again, assuming I made claims I never did. I only made a statement of fact. People seem to be assuming I'm talking about the Max crashes; maybe other people are but I said and meant nothing about them.
There is a precedent for criminal liability for aircraft manufacturers because of this case. Boeing is an aircraft manufacturer. That is the only connection my comment was intended to make.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
There’s no “precedent” to reinforce because Boeing was already facing criminal charges following their crashes. Prosecutors already have a mechanism in place to bring charges if they feel they’re warranted.
And in the case of the MAX crashes, specifically, there was no prosecution because Boeing accepted a plea deal. Not because of an absence of a precedent for charging manufacturers.
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
HolyBonobos@reddit
I would like to see where I made claims about the MAX crashes and Boeing's prosecution for them.
My understanding of the top comment was that it wasn't about the MAX crashes specifically but was more of a general statement regarding the spike in aircraft incidents that Boeing has experienced in the last few years, as well as any future problems their products might have.
I tried to engage with the reply in good faith, stating that a criminal ruling affecting an aircraft manufacturer could be consequential to other aircraft manufacturers.
Again, at no point did I say or imply anything about the MAX crashes, nor did I make any sort of claim about what should or should not happen to Boeing, or to any other manufacturer for what it's worth.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
It’s not that deep.
thissexypoptart@reddit
Reading comprehension
catsby90bbn@reddit
The edgy Reddit response. 🤌🏻
lmFairlyLocal@reddit
No shit. What about the Max?
layoffthemeth@reddit
Boeing has already paid billions of dollars in fines and compensation over the Max. And will likely pay a lot more. What else do you want?
lmFairlyLocal@reddit
Why are you here saying "what else do you want", on this post? The AirFrance447 crew misunderstood their cockpit and unfortunately crashed, and while the crash wasn't really AirBus's fault, they're being held responsible and paying up for their respective responsibility in the disaster.
Meanwhile, the Boeing Max crashes were a direct result of Boeing choosing profits over safety, and crashing two planes.
.... And you're asking what more I want??
That's a skill issue on your side, I'm afraid 😟
layoffthemeth@reddit
So what else do you want? What could you possibly do to a business other than fines? You want dissolution? Death penalty?
lmFairlyLocal@reddit
I want a legislative system that punishes those who choose to place profits over safety and lives, yes.
ProjectNo864@reddit
Found the Boeing stock holder
TravelerJim-retired@reddit
Silly Reddit comment. Do you not own Boeing stock? They have been a profitable company and shareholders have made countless millions over the years. I’m not an oligarch but have made money owning Boeing shares. And has nothing to do with how I think they handled MCAS and MAX.
ChargeFinal925@reddit
Can't have a reddit thread without whataboutism!
The_Third_Molar@reddit
Boeing le bad Airbus le good
RemodelingMe@reddit
… and there it is. So predictable
mduell@reddit
Already did.
Desert_2007@reddit
*Boeing would like to know your location for a brief survey*
Scifi_fans@reddit
Lol
layoffthemeth@reddit
Boeing has already paid billions of dollars in fines and compensation over the Max
Novel-Motor-7608@reddit
And spent a few quid on a hit squad
p4intball3r@reddit
Boeing has enough long standing problems that a kangaroo court like this shouldn't be necessary to convict them.
ThrowAwaAlpaca@reddit
Lol, lmao even
rtjl86@reddit
Wait! The crash where the copilot was pulling back the whole time? And it took the Captain coming from his sleeping area and sitting in the other seat and saying no, push forward. Unless this is about how the sidesticks did not both move in unison so the other pilots could not detect what the copilot was doing.
TrainingObligation@reddit
Sticks not moving in unison and relying on audio/visual alerts when out of sync is my big issue. 99.999% of the time, no problem. That 0.001%? This happens.
spazturtle@reddit
You can do the same in a Boeing. Here is Air France doing it again in 2022 in a 777:
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30863-air-france-boeing-777-incident-bea-update
gmac-320@reddit
Mostly the airbus is just a fantastic aircraft across-the the range. But as someone that still considers themselves a pilot and not a flying computer manager, the biggest mistakes I think airbus ever made was not having side sticks linked together. You just lose so much SA.
Having said that, if you can't Work out that you're in a high level stall in an a330 (no matter what crazy shit is happening) then you have no place being there. Could the aircraft system be improved... Definitely. But as far as I'm concerned, this is 100% on Air France and a complete failure of training and checking system. Lets be honest, everyone has known of a culture problem inside that airline for a long time and it's still the only European airline I avoid..
HotWineGirl@reddit
Can you elaborate on the culture problem? Someone else has said that they basically can't fire people, but is there something else?
HobartTasmania@reddit
As I understand it the plane registered that one pilot was pulling up on his whereas the other pilot was pushing down and so it simply averaged out the two inputs, also did nothing to warn about this situation.
Wild-Video-5317@reddit
From what I've read the plane had an audible "dual input" warning but it was superseded by other warnings.
getpost@reddit
Criminal convictions and putting people in jail will not improve aviation safety.
Curly1109@reddit
What? This is why certification/insurance is so expensive...
ThisI5N0tAThr0waway@reddit
Yup. Even if it's 90% the pilot's fault, the insurer want their due. And they will go after the plane maker and the air company rather than the pilot.
DKUN_of_WFST@reddit
> go after the plan maker and the air company (airline?) rather than the pilot
Let’s not pretend that this is unique to this ruling or how compensation works in general. Vicarious liability is well established in many legal systems across the world. The airline employed him and were responsible for his training and actions.
ThisI5N0tAThr0waway@reddit
Yes airline. The rule in civil lawsuit is that you go after everybody get that could be even 1% responsible for the maximum amount of damage you can claim and prove.
twilighttwister@reddit
Not so much a rule, just a best practice. "Sue everyone involved and let the courts sort it out."
FullSqueeze@reddit
This won’t be the end. Airbus will definitely appeal it to the Supreme Court.
The criminal charges against Airbus is very flimsy; the pilot was the primary cause of the crash. This isn’t a case like the 737 Max crashes where the manufacturer had a clear defect.
Ok-Insurance-9456@reddit
Even in the max the 'defect' is a scenario boeing already made pilots train heavily for. Not to mention other pilots did not crash their 737 max in the exact same scenario so no excuse for the 2 flights to have even crashed at all.
Jaggedmallard26@reddit
The design was bad but there is a very good reason why the two crashes were with airlines with poor safety and training records. In fact the investigation reports explicitly stated that poor training by the airline was a major factor!
Ok_Library_1031@reddit
That's a very patriotic take, calling iPad lessons heavy training.
Known-Diet-4170@reddit
he isn't completely wrong though, i'm rated on both the 737 NG and MAX and i can tell you that the symptoms of the MACAS failure were basically the same as a stabilizer trim runaway, the failure to action the memory items (identical on the NG) was entirely on the crew
i'm not excusing Boeing for how MCAS failed, that was a serious issue know resolved but those accidents should have been preventable even with a complete lack of knowledge of the existence of MCAS if the correct procedures were applied
trim runaways is a very dangerous situation with or without MCAS and if not promptly recognized will lead very quickly to an uncontrollable airplane
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Runaway trim is a memory item that’s part of the broader 737 training with resolution steps that are independent of MCAS.
It’s quite literally demanded of every 737 pilot, NG or MAX, to understand how to respond immediately and without reference.
Ok-Insurance-9456@reddit
Typical redditor trying to mock and be snarky without knowing what is being talked about. Pretty obvious I was talking about runaway stabilizer which iirc is a memory item for all 737 pilots
PinaColadaSalad@reddit
Side sticks that average out inputs is an insane design flaw
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
If you ignore multiple iterations pitot tubes failing across multiple Airbus product lines that took years to address then, sure, there’s no “clear defect.”
railker@reddit
Noted elsewhere as a possible reason for Airbus fault, but the findings of the final report noted both that EASA declined to make the replacement mandatory, and they note the pitot tubes installed exceeded certification standards. Have to dig into the final report's full write up on the tubes for more info, but certainly less clear than some think.
Koulidaddy123@reddit
Whats incredibly tragic about this accident is that the exact aircraft was going to get the pitot tube retrofit imediately upon landing in Paris.
Adjutant_Reflex_@reddit
Yup. And it should’ve been replaced years earlier if the AD had been issued sooner.
Ok_Library_1031@reddit
Aren't you ignoring that the most significant accidents related to pitot tubes in abnormal states are all not Airbus?
ojassed@reddit
This and the ongoing lawsuit against the estate of the deceased UPS co-pilot… why…
miffet80@reddit
The ongoing WHAT, are you for real??
No_Pattern_2190@reddit
Was this the one where the static port was taped so the pilots thought they were overspeeding until they stalled
invertedrevolution@reddit
No, think you are referring to Aeroperu Flight 603. They didn't stall, but crashed into the Pacific in full flight, because they thought they were much higher than they really were.
dnndrk@reddit
So what about Boeing when their executives knowingly the planes have software issues but didn’t warn the airlines about the extra training that would be needed?
TheWurstPirate@reddit
I am not a lawyer, but I'm fairly confident that has no bearing on the AF447 crash.
NFTArtist@reddit
of course r/aviation is better qualified to judge this case (lol)
Vinura@reddit
There was nothing wrong with the aircraft.
1nolefan@reddit
I thought they found those speed measuring pipes were frozen providing not so accurate speed which started chain reaction 😦
Vinura@reddit
Pitot probes have heating to melt ice.
The pilots were not aware they were frozen.
Frozen probes on their own won't cause an aircraft to crash.
HobartTasmania@reddit
True, but no input at all, apparently made all the computer systems crash.
Puzzleheaded-Emu6338@reddit
I’m definitely no legal expert but is struggle to understand how airbus is liable to any extent for the sheer incompetence of Bonin.
ocjoro@reddit
Hi All, not familiar with this awfull disaster but i stay with the pito sensor which have been proven failed and responsible, an i so wrong ?
HobartTasmania@reddit
It apparently froze over, whereas standard practice was to have heated ones installed so that never happens.
Toiletten-Toni@reddit
I have no idea about flying but isn't there any sensor or indicator for what kind of angle you're flying? After reading the report, I'd probably panic too if I was doing the correct input and the plane told me it was wrong - which is what happened with the stall warning if I understand correctly?
GoshDangZilla@reddit
Cool, arrest and jail the c-suite and board? That's what happens when people do these crimes, right?
briyyz@reddit
Reminds me of a time... 25-30 years ago, I was at the bar at the Crowne Plaza Schiphol (the one in Hoofddorp). Drinking with me that night was a senior HR staff person with a UK based airline and an American flight surgeon. They were at an airline HR safety conference.
The conversation came up to "what airline would you not fly" and Air France was top of the list, because it was "impossible" to fire pilots due to incompetence.
Took me 25 years for me to get back on an Air France plane after that conversation.
HenkDeVries6@reddit
Man's laughter?
DolourousEdd@reddit
Wasn't this crash caused squarely by the idiot FO?
sushi_collector12@reddit
Man I have a flight in less than 24hrs and this pops up on my feed
Lewis_Shiro179@reddit
it is genuinely insane that it took this many years for the families to finally get some sort of legal closure tbh. the entire industry completely rewrote the book on upset recovery and high-altitude stalls because of af447, but the justice system moves at a glacial pace.
Lordhartley@reddit
This is good explanation of the incident https://youtu.be/e5AGHEUxLME?si=l0BtR6wnEr2pj1dw
shoshpd@reddit
I am really not a fan of some countries’ insistence on criminal prosecution over aviation accidents.
TheNelson3@reddit
This was quite the accident report to read. I can see how Airbus could be somewhat at fault, considering the strange nature of how the stall alarm was acting in conjunction with the pitot tubes/icing.
No doubt the FO erroneously pulling up was a major fault here, but even the captain ended up being confused. When he realized they were in a stall, he told the FO to nose down, which then caused the pitot tubes to get a correct reading, causing the stall alarm to sound, eventually leading to the captain saying yeah, I guess pull up then.
It will be interesting to see where the appeals end up on this one, highly recommend checking out Mentour Pilot's video on this.
12kVStr8tothenips@reddit
GOOD. I couldn’t imagine being a captain and not knowing immediately my FO is putting opposite controls in (except a dumb little light). Worst thing about side stick is you have no tactile feedback what the other pilot is doing. Airbus needs to take at least some responsibility for this.
Designer-Salary-7773@reddit
Takeaway Message to manufacturers - If you are going to automate, it needs to be idiot proof. If you dont like the liability - dont automate.
Choice-Strawberry-74@reddit
So the manufacturer and the airline found guilty. Not sure why on earth Airbus would be at fault because the pilots didn’t know how to fly the plane properly.
ILikeFlyingMachines@reddit
Weird. From what I remember it was mostly human error on the pilots side.
sofixa11@reddit
One pilot, the other two in the cockpit - including the captain who was awaken and came in so was still sleepy and had limited time to evaluate the situation - did everything correctly.
Lucas198019801980@reddit
i understand the possible fault of Airbus here, but why Air France is being blamed? by far i remember, their maintenance was almost impeccable on the plane until the crash
SOCA1453@reddit
Air France's culpability is hardly surprising, since the final report by the BEA has singled out poor training and pilot error (which could also be attributed to poor training and vetting by Air France) as among the main causes of the crash.
dwillpower@reddit
If I recall, didn’t they not train on high altitude stalls.
Wyciorek@reddit
Did anybody back then?
rand0m_g1rl@reddit
I think you have the companies inverted here.
NaiveRevolution9072@reddit
I'd imagine bad crew training or something
IggyD003@reddit
This crew training and cockpit management
post-explainer@reddit
Please provide a source by replying to the message that was sent to you. Failure to respond to that message will result in the automatic removal of this post. Please feel free to reach out to the mod team through modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
r/Aviation is trialing new measures to prevent karma farming. Please feel free to provide feedback through modmail. Thank you for participating in the community!