(Paris) The representative of Airbus pleaded the absence of responsibility of the manufacturer in the crash, on 1er June 2009, of the Rio-Paris flight, which caused the death of 228 people, during his interrogation at the trial of the disaster in Paris.
Posted at 3:57 p.m.
Judged since October 10 for manslaughter, Airbus faces questions from a Paris court, until Tuesday, by the voice of its representative.
The former test pilot responded for more than six hours, claiming ignorance on some questions, answering most at length.
“The accident begins with the icing of the probes”, recalls first one of the three judges, who circulates in the courtroom three Pitot probes, thin metal tubes fixed to the outside of the plane.
1er June 2009, destabilized by the icing of these probes measuring the speed of the aircraft and especially by its chain consequences in the cockpit, the pilots of AF447 lost control of the aircraft which hit the ocean in less five minutes.
During the previous months, similar obstructions of probes by ice crystals had multiplied, almost entirely on a single Pitot model, the Thalès AA model.
Why did Airbus not pay for the replacement of these probes on the planes, by applying a “statistical precautionary principle”? asks the magistrate.
“At that time, we do not understand what is really going on,” argues Christophe Cail. “Before the accident, the elements we have do not show us any particular danger, and we are still in the phase where we want to understand”.
The manufacturer is being sued for having underestimated the seriousness of this failure and especially its consequences on the pilots. He is also accused of not having sufficiently warned the airlines so that they train their crews.
For Airbus, on the contrary, there were three “exit doors” that the pilots could have used to save the plane: it is therefore not the device and its manufacturer that are at fault.
The manufacturer also believes that it has largely “communicated” about the failure: in its review Safety Firstduring safety and maintenance conferences, during training sessions.
“Fairly general actions”, notes the magistrate: “Wouldn’t it have been possible to have a more targeted response? »
“We did not send a targeted message on this, except to Air France and Air Caraïbes […] who had solicited Airbus, admits Mr. Cail.
“Do you think that was within the competence of the companies? asked the judge.
“We distribute Safety First, it’s almost perhaps the only way we have to have direct contact with the pilots. Otherwise it is the airlines to whom we distribute. It is up to her to redistribute […] “, he summarizes.
Air France, which operated the flight, is on trial with Airbus for manslaughter.
During his interrogation on Wednesday and Thursday, the representative of the company defended himself from any fault, by refusing to charge the pilots or to discard on Airbus.
Aeronautical experts considered that the “procedure” put in place by Airbus to react to the icing of the Pitot probes, and therefore to the loss of speed indications in the cockpit, was not “suitable”.
The AF447 pilots were trained in it, but they never applied it. They also did not diagnose the origin of the breakdown.
In the evening, Mr. Cail concluded that the sequence of actions of the pilots remains partly mysterious. “I’m not saying they’re bad drivers,” he said. “It’s the crew that didn’t work.”