Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - Air France, Airbus guilty of corporate manslaughter in 2009 Air France 447 crash (bbc.com)

UnknowingFool writes: The Paris Appeals Court found that both Air France and Airbus were "solely and entirely responsible" for the crash of Air France 447 over Atlantic Ocean which killed 228 people on June 1, 2009. The court overturned a lower court's April 2023 ruling which had cleared both companies. Both companies were fined the maximum of €225,000. While both companies blamed the cause of the accident on pilot error, prosecutors contend that poor training and failing to fix an known flaw led to the accident. In the accident analysis identified a root cause of the accident was pitot tubes which iced up during certain flying conditions. That icing caused erratic air speed readings fluctuating between low to supersonic within seconds of each other. Those conflicting readings led to a chain of confusing errors and warnings from the flight system including a stall warning. The plane was stalling however the flying pilot's (PF) attempted to climb out of a stall by pulling back actually caused the plane to stall into the ocean.

While not in the official report, a contributing factor noted by experts is the design of Airbus cockpits. One issue is the electronic fly-by-wire controls where the physical position of certain controls like the throttle does not match the input in the system. In this case, the autopilot had lowered the thrust output during flight, but it could not move the throttle position. The throttle position appeared that plane had more thrust than it did. In the Airbus cockpit, joysticks are used instead of a control yoke. The joysticks are symmetric in the layout of the cockpit in that the pilot on the left has the joystick on the left and the pilot on the right has their joystick on the right. The joysticks are also not linked to provide feedback to each other. The other pilot (pilot in command or PIC) could not know the PF was trying to climb unless he was looking directly at the PF's hands. The PIC realized the error too late to overcome the stall.

As for responsibility, Airbus had identified an icing problem on their Airbus 320 model planes and recommended those pitot tube be replaced as early as September 2007. Air France 447 was an Airbus 330, and Air France delayed replacing the pitot tubes until further recommendations. However, Air France themselves recorded had nine incidents between May 2008 and March 2009 on Airbus 330/340 planes where the pitot tubes failed due to icing conditions. Air France found six unreported incidents after the AF447 crash.

While the cockpit situation was confusing, crash investigators faulted the pilots for failing to follow procedures which would have been to first re-establish controls after the autopilot turned off. After the accident, pilot training now includes scenarios like AF447 where there is conflicting warnings. Also there was more emphasis placed on manually flying instead of relying on the autopilot.

Comment Re:Mathematician commentary included (Score 1) 76

I am waiting for the paper to be thoroughly reviewed before I would declare that the model proved anything. Andrew Wiles made a mistake in his first attempt proving Fermat's Last Theorem where he relied on logic that had not been proven previously. It was a fundamental problem where he had to rework his proof around that flaw.

Comment Re:Today's easiest prediction (Score 1) 52

Do these Amazon podcasts not have ads? I would imagine Amazon would stuff in as many ads as they could even though Alexa+ is a subscription. It is $99 per year but itself or free bundled with Amazon Prime. But if we use Amazon Prime as an example, it used be exclusively ad-free content. Now some content have ads. With AI ads could be generated and put into the podcast with little effort. A podcast about cars could slip in ads sponsored by Ford.

Comment Re:This is happening (Score 1) 44

There is no ban on using AI; the sanctions are for not checking the work. If the lawyers did that, they would not have been sanctioned. However you have not provided any evidence that the models hallucinate less. Your only argument is those models were "ancient" and newer models are more advanced. More advanced does not mean they no longer hallucinate. That is your only "evidence"; newer == no errors.

Comment Re:This is happening (Score 1) 44

And there has been detailed documented evidence that these models no longer hallucinate? Or is the current attitude that improvements must have been made; therefore, everything is fine. Or do new cases come up every day? Bear in mind, new cases are coming up even after multiple courts have sanctioned lawyers. Lawyers are not heeding those warnings and not checking their work.

Comment Re:This is happening (Score 1) 44

It doesn't work and they don't have magic to make it work. To the extent it does work, it's mostly automating away jobs which could have been automated away long ago but have been kept around for political reasons.

The problem is that it seems to work in some cases. For example, a few lawyers have been sanctioned for using AI to create briefs. On the surface, the briefs seemed fine but the cases cited did not exist or was not related to the case.

Comment Re:yeah there's a reason for that (Score 3, Interesting) 53

PC ports are also harder than the PS ones because optimization is a harder problem on PCs. PlayStation hardware is known. PC hardware is highly variable. A major complaint of Xbox developers is the Xbox Series S and X have different hardware capabilities but MS expected games would have similar performance on both. So developers optimized games for the S and these games were not perform as well as PS versions.

Comment Re:You say Tomato, I say Tomahto (Score 1) 52

The training material is relevant because there are many people who believe anything they find on the Internet. For example the Flat Earther community has many YouTube videos unconvinced that the world is round. Considering that people can communicate worldwide easily today, there are some people who are easily fooled.

Comment Re:Today's easiest prediction (Score 3, Interesting) 52

On YouTube, AI slop is being created all the time. For example many "historical" WWII channels are pumping out all sorts of misinformation. Videos made within the last two years are highly suspect. Thankfully there seem to be a trend where the titles were all click bait. "German POWs shocked by American. . " "Japanese female POWs surprised by American. . . " The general plot is that Axis military forces were "shocked" by the Americans in some way, but the characters were fictional. For example, I could not find any historical accounts of Japanese female POWs held by Americans because Japan did not have women serving in the military. The vast majority of Japanese women in camps were the US women of Japanese descent held in the internment camps. The vast majority of Japanese women held by the US in Japan would have been in civilian refugee camps not POW camps.

The premise of these stories however was undercut by reality. Towards the end of WWII, the Axis powers were lacking in resources and personnel. The Americans who were winning the war having more resources and functioning logistics chains should not "shock" anyone.

Comment Re:'Waited too long' is a lame cop-out. (Score 0) 97

I guess now everyone will be acting like sue it or lose it because penalizing continued wrong-doing now has a time limit from the starting date of the initial wrong-doing.

1) If there was not any statute of limitations, your neighbor from 50 years ago can sue because you never returned his hammer as he claims. Good luck trying to find witnesses and documents from that long ago. 2) The time limit is from when the wrong-doing is found out, not when it happens.

Comment Re:What a waste of time (Score 1) 97

Normally a statute of limitations question would have been addressed earlier in the case. I can only guess a main point of contention is when did Musk know that OpenAI was going to convert to for-profit. If the defense had to establish at trial Musk knew in 2019, then that would be why the trial was needed. If Musk can claim he found out in 2021, then he was within the statiute.

Comment Re:Technicality (Score 2) 97

The core issue for civil cases is whether or not the plaintiff was damaged. Filing a lawsuit years after the limitations ran out would undercut any argument Musk had that he was damaged. He was aware of the conversion to for-profit. He had the money to sue. He wasn't damaged enough to sue before the limitations ran out would be a conclusion by the court.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The geeks shall inherit the earth." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...