Turbulence at Air France. The Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA) has published a report which accuses Air France pilots of a lack of rigor in respecting safety procedures during in-flight incidents on Tuesday August 23. The French body responsible for investigating plane accidents believes that some of the company’s pilots are too inclined to favor their own judgment. Air France promises to apply all the recommendations of the report, but some of its pilots believe overdo it the challenges of BEA.
The report of the Bureau of Investigation and Analysis concerns the analysis of an incident that occurred on a flight Brazzaville-Paris, on December 31, 2020. A fuel leak is detected while the aircraft is in cruise. The crew decides to divert to the airport of N’Djamenain Chad. On the other hand, the Captain, supported by his two co-pilots, decided not to cut one of the aircraft’s two engines, contrary to what was provided for in the “Fuel leak” when such an incident occurs. The conversation taking place in the cockpit, recorded by the flight recorders, shows that the pilots considered that cutting off the engine would cause more inconvenience than keeping it running despite the leak.
For investigators of BEAthis situation involved a fire risk important : “Lfuel was splashed onto hot engine surfaces”they write. The fire was only averted “Luckily”. And the report points out, not without irony, that “the procedures result from an in-depth analysis by the manufacturer, the assumption of which is that they will be applied by the crew (…) with rigor and in their entirety.”
According to sky experts, too many Air France crews feel authorized to deviate from it, either to favor their own analysis of the situation in the event of an incident, or for reasons “operational optimization“. The report then cites three similar cases, which occurred between 2017 and 2022. the BEA worries “of a certain culture installed in certain crews” and hypothesizes that Air France’s operational flight manuals feed ambivalence by recommending, for example, “to improvise in the face of the unpredictable to obtain the surest result”.
“The civil aviation code says that the captain is justified and even has the obligation to derogate from all the rules in order to preserve the safety of passengers if the situation requires it”, objects Francis barnyardcaptain and legal expert. He recalls the case of an aircraft of the Australian company Qantason October 7, 2008 in Singapore. The aircraft and its passengers were saved by the clear-sightedness of the crew, who quickly exempted themselves from the planned safety procedures. “Safety is an imperative for pilots”, argues a source at Air France. Those of the flight Brazzaville-Paris “had another risk in mind, the loss of a reactor, which is much more serious”. But for the BEAonly an exceptional situation can justify deviating from the procedures: “There, with a fuel leak, there is no reason because it is a known situation”, responds the institution.
“Air France will take into account all the recommendations of the report”writes the company in a press release. She highlighted not having waited for the BEA to work tirelessly on flight safety. It has thus set up tools that allow pilots to redo their flights by replaying all the decisions yet on security. It also plans to launch an audit on the issue. Within the company, some point out, however, that the report of the BEA is based on only four cases in five years, while Air France operates a thousand flights a day.