Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Manslaughter Charges Filed Against Airbus over AF447

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Manslaughter Charges Filed Against Airbus over AF447

    Let the games begin:

    A French judge files manslaughter charges against European aircraft maker Airbus over a crash in 2009.

  • #2
    Ploy To Force Investigation

    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I'm quite prepared to believe the worst about any organisation or enterprise, but how can charges of anything be filed if the cause of the crash is unknown? That seems to me to be contrary to natural justice. The article says a judge filed charges, which is in itself puzzling, only the police charge people in the UK, the judge has a passive role, simply to make judgements, they do not act as prosecutors or defenders, they only JUDGE. Could this be a legal ploy to force further investigation of the crash which had otherwise, um, stalled?

    Comment


    • #3
      What is a preliminary charge?
      Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

      Comment


      • #4
        Manslaughter charges filed before the culprit is found, how does that make sense? Seems like a legal thing to allow for further investigation into the crash and I guess more into Airbus. Nothing is really going to help until those boxes are found and whether the authorities maybe believe Airbus is hiding something, who knows. Interesting that Air France opposes this move and wouldn't be surprised if this investigation and wouldn't be surprised trial goes as long as the Concorde investigation/trial.
        what ever happens......happens

        Comment


        • #5
          The French legal system is a far, far different one than the UK. Judges take a far more proactive role in cases, rather than having it argued before them from two sides. They actively participate in investigation.

          The purpose of the air accident investigation is to find the cause - not a culprit as such. In many parts of the world, accident investigations and investigators cannot be used in court as it would jeapodise the ability of those investigators to do their job thoroughly. As such, if there is ever to be a legal outcome, a seperate investigation has to be conducted by the legal system, and I'd suggest that this is what might be occurring here.

          Comment


          • #6
            The key thing here is that the charges are being filed against Airbus, not Air France, something that presumes that the crash is being attributed to equipment issues rather than operational ones. Since the only action taken thus far is a fleetwide pitot refit, that would seem consistent. But, as we all know, pitot failure alone does not crash airplanes...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jingogunner View Post
              ................The article says a judge filed charges, which is in itself puzzling, only the police charge people in the UK, .............
              Would the police in the UK charge a company due to poor design of a product?

              In the USA it would be a grand jury, a prosecutor, or a lawyer who files a lawsuit.

              Comment


              • #8
                To make an obvious statement: Anglo-American judicial practices are not the world's standard. I think the difference is beside the point. I think the "charge" in this case is sort of like a scientific theory. The point of the investigation, which I think will go on for some time, is to prove or disprove the charge.

                Seems to me something very similar happened when Princess Diana died in a car crash.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  The key thing here is that the charges are being filed against Airbus, not Air France...
                  I have it that both are being charged.

                  A local newspaper titled "Airbus y Air France acusados de homicidio culposo".

                  Of course, you cannot trust the newspapers...

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Captain Judge

                    The whole issue is yet another indication that humans, Anglo-American or Other, entirely lack the most basic sense of what is fair or just, - except me and Mr AFTS-Crash, of course. Everyone can see there is something judicially wrong with bringing 'charges' before investigation has produced a suspect. I know the US and other countries, particularly France, think it is fair and reasonable to appoint a judge to investigate specialist issues including air crashes, but that does not help achieve better understanding of the truth even though they pretend it does. Would the French be happy to have judges fly their jets? I guarantee they would. Why not appoint accountants to head the NTSB Go teams, or perhaps people from Air Crash Investigations?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thought Pitot failure DID cause accidents.

                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      The key thing here is that the charges are being filed against Airbus, not Air France, something that presumes that the crash is being attributed to equipment issues rather than operational ones. Since the only action taken thus far is a fleetwide pitot refit, that would seem consistent. But, as we all know, pitot failure alone does not crash airplanes...
                      Mr Evan, could you please kindly clarify that bit about But, as we all know, pitot failure alone does not crash airplanes...? I thought that 757 crash where the pitot tubes were blocked with beetle larvae showed that it does.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        hors d'ouvre

                        Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
                        What is a preliminary charge?
                        Its like when the waiter brings you something tasty but light just before the entree.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jingogunner View Post
                          ... that 757 crash where the pitot tubes were blocked with beetle larvae...
                          Uh? Which one is that? I'd like read a bit about it.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            There was also one when the tape was not removed after washing or something too.
                            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jingogunner View Post
                              Mr Evan, could you please kindly clarify that bit about But, as we all know, pitot failure alone does not crash airplanes...? I thought that 757 crash where the pitot tubes were blocked with beetle larvae showed that it does.
                              Birgenair 301. The final report made the following conclusion:

                              "The crew's failure to recognize the activation of the stick shaker as a warning of imminent entrance to the stall, and the failure of the crew to execute the procedures for recovery from the onset of loss of control."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X