AF 447 again?

If no one at the AF Dispatch office is tasked with flight following, that is looking ahead of the flight path of a dispatched flight to see if any weather hazard is in the path of a dispatched AF flight and then tasked with coordinating a new and safer path diverting around the hazard, and coordinating that path with flight planning, metro, ATC and the crew, then I would expect a 100% probability that this mishap will occur again, at AF and at every other airline that fails to complete the tasking required to ensure safety of its flights and its embarked passengers.

The subsequent spending of tens of millions of dollars investigating any such mishap, will in the end not change the disastrous outcome, and in that sense will be money not spent to promote safety, but only rather to satisfy subsequent law suits. Remember, that is a legal function, not a safety function.

Safety’s goal is to PREVENT THE MISHAP FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PLACE, FROM OCCURRING AT ALL.

The job of lawyers is to just pick up the broken pieces and dead bodies and sit around with a pile of money and dole it out to whom they determine is the victim. How does that bring back the dead? How does that make anyone whole? Where is the prevention of loss in all of that?

3 thoughts on “AF 447 again?

  1. Paul Miller

    AF447 went wrong in so many ways. If the company and the country are in any way attempting to prevent a similar event from occurring again, then the company and the country must address all of the many ways that AF447 went wrong. Here is a short list:
    1. AF Dispatch Failure to warn of massive thunderstorms in the path of 228 passengers and crew onboard AF447.
    2. AF Dispatch Failure to establish a safe flight path for AF447 on which to operate in an area of known convective weather
    3. Equipment failure of the indicated airspeed
    4. Inability of the operating systems on board the AB 332 to switch over from faulty IAS inputs to other inputs available, such as computed True Air Speed, and to continue to operate without catastrophic failure.
    5. AF lack of procedures SOP for an event that would be expected or known to occur, that is the computer misinterpreting the planes airspeed, when a major component such as a pitot tube malfunctions due to icing.

  2. Paul Miller

    For the accident board to just make note of the actions of the flight crew unconnected to the events as the crew experienced them, is to not investigate this mishap for safety purposes, but rather to use the system to protect parties apparently responsible for the event.

  3. Paul Miller

    The safety job is to prevent the mishap from happening in the first place and it is 100% possible to do so!

    In the process lawyers will have nothing to do!

    Oh my?!

Leave a Reply