I found the sound of the increase in thrust towards the end of the video to be quite creepy.
Both pilots Captain Asseline and First Officer Mazière survived. 3 people died due to smoke. Pilot was sentenced to imprisonment for about a year. Today, the captain, Michel Asseline has lost his French pilot license for 8
years. He is now flying in Australia.
I feel that the sentence is unfair. Its not like he purposely crashed the plane for the heck of it. I'm pretty sure he did his best to try and recover the plane.
He was surprised when he watched the video to discover that the landing gear was only about 30ft off the ground when the altimeter showed 100ft.
Furthermore, in 1998, about a decade after the crash, new evidence shows a person removing the aircraft Flight Data Recorder. It is believed that the FDR that was shown in court isn't the same one from the crash.
Photo of man removing the FDR and more details here.
Conspiracy theorists suggest that Airbus was trying to cover up the faults of the aircraft. It was the first Fly-By-Wire commercial jet after all. This failure could mean Airbus would have an economic crisis on their hands.
* OEB 19/1: Engine Acceleration Deficiency at Low Altitude
This OEB noted that the engines may not respond to throttle input at low altitude.
* OEB 06/2: Baro-Setting Cross Check
This OEB stated that the barometric altitude indication on the A320 did not always function properly.
A month before the incident, these reports were released but the Air France crew wasn't aware of them.
These malfunctions led some theorists to believe that Airbus is to blame for the crash, not Captain Asseline.
I'm on the pilot's side here. They cannot possibly convict him of manslaughter when the black boxes were switched and there are 8 seconds missing from the recording. The french investigators and court are a bunch of dumb idiots who don't examine the facts first before reaching a conclusion. That pilot should walk free.
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely beside the driver. I live in the state of Ceará, Brazil and researched about the accident after watching a TV show which left the air who was to blame. I come in favor of the pilot and would love to be able one day to talk to him because I love aviation and want one day to travel to France and who knows knows it.
ReplyDeletepaulinho@rapix.com.br
I work for an agency called the APCIU and we believe the pilot is innocent but legally for us to even try to clear the captains name there has to be an American passenger on that plane due to the fact we are an American based agency so was there any american passangers on board that plane we have some evidence that he is innocent but we can't get involved in any investigations unless there was an American passenger on that plane
ReplyDeleteI take my hat off to the captain. He did the best he could. He is a man of honor.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking into all the documentation on this accident, the Pilot is not to be blamed. However why were passengers allowed on this flight. That was sheer stupidity.
ReplyDeleteBlack boxes ware confiscated 10 days after accident, not directly after that. Man can find signs of manipulation in recorded data, missing data etc. I don't agree at court are idiots. They might be paid, or simply represent interest of a much more powerful players - Air France.
ReplyDeleteUltimately the pilot has to take some of the blame for this crash and the deaths. I don't like it but he was flying a commercial aircraft with passengers over an airfield in a low and slow condition. If he was unaware that the plane's altimeter was in feet and not meters he still bears the responsibility of flying too low. He was however given a plane that would not climb properly when he tried to and this also contributed to the crash. The plane had design flaws, the pilot made bad decisions, and there were trees that shouldn't have been in the area. I'd give the pilot 30-40% responsibility for the crash.
ReplyDeleteI think the pilot is culpable. He knowingly took the passengers and aircraft into a dangerous situation, purposefully disabled some of the safeties (i.e. auto throttle at one of the floor limits) misjudged the situation (the length of the runway, and altitude of the plane), and didn't know the performance of the aircraft sufficiently well (engine spool up times) to safely perform the manoeuvre he was undertaking. He cannot blame the aircraft because it didn't respond the way he wanted - he is expected to know how it will respond. He knowingly took it into a dangerous situation where the aircraft had to take measures to protect itself (which most planes don't). His arrogance, recklessness, lack of skills and knowledge destroyed a plane and killed 2 children and an adult. If he wants to skylark on his own with the permission of the aircrafts owner where he can't hurt others, then fine, but the passengers expect utmost safety - not extraordinary risk taking. He is dangerous and shouldn't be flying.
ReplyDeleteYou sound very biased towards the pilot.
DeleteNo wonder you completely missed the point that the Flight Data Recorder's data was tampered with, with the crucial seconds intentionally cut off from the magnetic tape that would confirm the plane's delay in response to his increase in thrust in his attempt to lift the plane over the treetops. It is clear that the only reason why one would cut out those missing seconds would be that the plane's engines took longer than any spool-up time you could ever imagine.
I agree the pilot was culpable. The engine spool-up time of about 5 sec was perfectly correct, given that they had been pulled right back to flight-idle. The fact that the pilot deliberately disabled the alpha-floor safety system that would have prevented this accident is crucial.
DeleteAfter reading all this & watching NatGeo's Air Crash Investigation episode...I'm convinced that the pilot is innocent and he did his best to save the plane... French administration & Airbus are the real culprits.. I'll never fly in an airbus again...
ReplyDeleteThis is a clear case of giving a good dog a bad name in other to hang it.
ReplyDeleteAirbus overlooked the plane's defects, gave the pilots terrible recon photos which didn't even include the woods(In which the plane crashed into) and even swapped the blackboxes.
Wat a shame
I had a few beers with Captain Michel Asseline, 10 years later -
ReplyDeleteHis opinion of the A320 (I quote his words in French) "Airbus, c'est la merde" - Try a web translation...
(s) Retired 747 pilot - TRE-TRI
I just watched "Mayday" which dealt with the crash of Flight 296. I also remember the incident and also am on the side of the pilot. Big business wins in the end and Captain Asseline took the fall. A very unfortunate event in history!
ReplyDeleteMost of the posters here are missing the relevant point. My father was THE senior test pilot for the British Civil Aviation Authority at the time of the crash and knew the French pilot personally. My father was in no doubt that the pilot was solely responsible for the crash, as M. Assline was well known to be over-confident in his appreciation of his flying abilities by all who worked with him (ie: a 'cocky' sort). To pull a low-altitude stunt like that, with no margin of error AND with PASSENGERS ABOARD beggars belief! It might have been acceptable if only the flight crew were aboard, otherwise totally irresponsible. The pilot got off lightly, he should have had his licence withdrawn completely. He was not qualified for what was, essentially, display flying. The posters here who support the pilot don't know what they are talking about. Think about it - low level flying with 130 passengers on board? Would YOU be happy to know your pilot was playing with your life? I don't think so. Unprofessional.
ReplyDeleteTo confirm, a close friend and colleague worked with M. Asseline for a simulator acceptance, and assessed him also as over-confident to the point of being arrogant. I have no doubt the pilot was to blame, and the conspiracy theorists (tampering with a black box?) are totally missing the point.
DeleteAgreed, the aircraft was not responsible for the reckless manner in which it was flown, the aircraft was not the captain -- you were Mr. Asseline. Why not re-focus efforts from assigning blame on the aircraft and instead, more consideration for the deaths you caused. ... shameful arrogance!
DeleteI find it ironic that so many people blame the captain and no mention of Air France who planned the entire thing! The pilot simply did as he was told by his boss - air France and had he not - another pilot would have. Air France would have just replaced him. The map he was given was not accurate the info he was given i.e. Runway to pass over - again wrong. He was destined to fail. As for being cocky... Anyone who has worked the same job for many years knows that your job after so long becomes second nature to you. You don't need to think as much you just do. I've been at my job 20 years - I know my job inside and out. It's been implied by jealous coworkers I'm cocky. I'm not cocky - I'm just good at my job. I'm confident in my skills & my co workers often come to me with questions or for help and always no matter how busy I am I gladly help them. I'm just a hard worker who made it a point to learn my job inside and out - why? I want to do a good job and take pride in my work. Anyone who has worked same job for years will know what I mean when I say we don't really have to think about what we are doing at work we just do it because we have done it so many times before and know exactly how to do it correctly. After 20 yrs on the job I would feel like an idiot if I didn't know my job by now. As for pilots at the start of their career they work for peanuts $20,000 by the time they get up to $100k they been living like poppers long enough and I want a confident pilot not some mousy week person that buckles under pressure. My feeling: pilot did as he was told by air France. A dry run or practice run should have been done before the show or and the pilot should have at least went and saw the airfield prior but he wasn't given any info until right before the flight. Airbus had too much to lose as far as money invested developing the plane. It was far easier to have the pilot be the fall guy. And cheaper! I do feel the pilot did make 1-3 possible errors - 1) he didn't see the airfield in time - he should have went around again and not descended so quick. 2) he was slotted to fly over paved long runway and switched to short grass field where all the spectators were. I feel he should have radioed in and asked if it was acceptable to switch runways. He always could have done a couple fly overs and looped back. 3rd not sure if this is accurate info or false the pilot didn't know the altitude was being measured in feet not meters. If that's true then that is a huge mistake. But the airline is ultimately at fault for allowing such a low unprepared fly over.
DeleteQuote: "...and there were trees that shouldn't have been in the area."
ReplyDeleteNo, of course they shouldn't. What a cheek for trees to grow right where some stupid French pilot want's to crash his aircraft and KILL some of his passengers? Would you fly with this ass.... at the controls?
The captain of this Aircraft should take responsibility for his actions instead of trying to clear his name. He didn´t familiarize himself with the airfield as he should have and he must take responsibility for flying at only 30 feet instead of 100ft. Claiming he couldn´t hear or read the radio altimeter is ridiculous. He cannot blame the Aircraft for not reacting as he wanted to when it was extremly low and right above stall speed. He should never have put it into that situation. It is very disrespectful towards the family members who have lost loved ones in this crash for him not to take responsibility for the mistakes he has made.
ReplyDeleteI just saw the nat. geo's documentary. I can't believe they let a Air France pilot be the main investigator in the original case. It certainly gives the impression of bias, even if there was none. I am appalled that the court found fit to blaim teh air carsh mainly on Captain Michel Asseline, as so many faults were made (like the height instructions, missing of the forrest, etc.). Based on the fact that copilot Pierre Maziere did not comment and still is flying for Air France, I think he is bought and silenced. I mostly blame the French courts for adding insult to injury and imposing a prison sentence on a man who may have faults, but definitely is not guilty of manslaughter.
ReplyDeleteAsseline worked with my father in Australia after that incident and he was convinced of a conspiracy in which the French airlines covered the entire thing up and made it look like his error so as not to damage sales of the new model of plane... he had transcripts of documents showing that the black box recovered from the crash was replaced with a fake and that he could tell from the records of the fake black box that it was recorded in a flight simulator somewhere in South Africa...
ReplyDeletehonestly people, it is manslaughter by negligence. Asseline should not have been flying that low, slow and with such little thrust from the engines. he claims to have done this before in the recording, but does not mention that it was at 20,000 feet with 40% thrust rather than 100 feet with 5% thrust. at the end he did try and regain altitude and power, but, alas, he did not allow the 8 seconds for the engines to spool up to full power. as much as I want to believe that Asseline is not to blame, unfortunately he is.
ReplyDeleteA captain is ultimately responsible for the aircraft, its crew and the passengers! Taking passengers on this flight (low pass at 100Ft AGL...) was a wrong thing to do. And how is it possible that the flight deck crew did not look into the obstacles around the airport with flying this low??? You have to take time to do so! Plain stupidity!
ReplyDeletea similar accident happened in India Bangalore airport Flt 605Feb 14th 1990. the aircraft took 8seconds to respond. A report in Frontline magazine(the Hindu group). airfrance took 4secs to respond too. its the fault of the AIRBUS not the pilot
ReplyDeleteNO it isn't. You are not a pilot. ALL pilots KNOW, that there is a spool up time on jetengines. It is BASIC knowledge!!! Asseline fcuked up big time and killed 3 people
Deletea similar accident occurred in bangalore Feb 14th 1990 the A320 took 8seconds to respond to the pilots command.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely believe that AirBus was involved but not with a planned coverup. They did have indications of problems as in any new version of an airplane before it is completely debugged. However, where they failed was in communicating these "bugs" or problems to all flight personnel flying the aircraft. This is specifically in reference to the fact that the Airbus 320 system would consider the craft landing when it was low to the ground and override the Captain's ability to pull the craft up. This more than anything caused the crash. This bug has now been corrected in later versions of the 320. However, the Captain is also to blame because he should have never agreed to take passengers along on such a dangerous flight. If he and his crew, knowing the dangers that are inherrent in a low speed, low level flyover, want to, that is thier profesional decision. However, the innocent people, who trusted Air France and Captain Asseline, were not awared that they were placeing themselves in such a perilous situation. Therefore, Captain Asseline has to also take some responsibility for those that died and those that were maimed for life. This was a tragic incident. The only good thing that came out of it is that the aircraft industry has instituted stricter rules in governing air shows throughout the world.
ReplyDeletethe plane was stalled? no! then 'cause he climb down?
ReplyDeleteYesterday, I watched the tv document of disaster. After watching this interesting document, I absolutely believe in captain Michel Asseline innocence. I thing, there was no evidence, that captain Asseline made a fault before crash of plane. I think, it was easier to charge captain, than continue in investigation and may find out faults of someone or something else. Captain Asseline was victim of strange circumstances, and his imprisonment had no reason.
ReplyDeleteKjeld Olsen, Denmark
Asseline should've used Radar Altimeter when flying at such a low level. If he maintained 100ft, the aicraft would've missed the 40ft trees! And air law states that 500ft is the minimum height for air shows.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time believing that the pilot was literally four seconds from the trees when he applied power. I think it much more likely that he applied power well before that, as he claims. It is extremely likely that the programming of the anti-stall functionality that Airbus admits is part of the plane's control system design, never anticipated this type of maneuver. This type of oversight, if you want to call it that, happens ALL the time, in programming software, as well as all other types of engineering. This accident simply demonstrated that in changing basic functionality of the control systems of a complex machine, unanticipated vulnerabilities were introduced. Airbus should have simply admitted this and moved on. Most of the public believes Airbus' controls systems were the root cause of this crash, or at least a major part of it. Then pretty much all doubt was removed by the crash of AF447, in which the flight data recorders showed that Airbus' control systems were completely incapable of dealing with a situation that would have been routine for a conventionally controlled aircraft, and the pilots were equally unable to deal with it, since they had basically never been trained to truly fly the aircraft. This was yet another unanticipated vulnerability. This is NOT to say the Airbus' control system has not prevented plenty of crashes. It may have. It's kind of hard to prove that pilots and conditions WOULD have messed up if they had truly been in control of all flights all these years. There's every reason to suspect Airbus is correct, that many crashes have been prevented. But the truth is that the new technology has caused some crashes as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the end its all a metter of money and intrest. And that's a big systematic default.
ReplyDeleteThe pilot is responsible for the safety of his aircraft and passengers. This pilot should still be in jail for the many areas that he made. Not being able to fly directly to the airport. Guilty. Losing altitude at the last minute. Guilty. He was flying with visual flight rules. You should've seen the trays long before hitting the trees. Guilty. To think that there was a conspiracy against him. Bullshit. Guilty.
ReplyDeleteJust curious, has your boss ever pressured you into doing something you really didn't want to do? Have you ever feared losing your job? Facts: 1) new plane (model/style) = bugs still to be discovered & pilots not familiar w how plane functions (new technology / automation) 2) pilot was not familiar w air field not shown air field and only given a map of it (inaccurate map showing no terrain) right before the flight 3) air France never should have had people on the flight except crew knowing all these factors
DeleteAs a retired air crash investigator, I have examined this crash in great detail. As usual, I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, Cpt. Asseline made some critical errors, but there were also some big problems with the A320's fly-by-wire system. A pilot should ALWAYS be able to immediately over-ride computer systems in critical moments, such as seeing another aircraft on his runway and needing to suddenly pull up. I've twice been in planes where this has happened... (thank God both planes responded immediately to the pilots' commands!)
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting factor: The investigator, Bechet, was close friends with several executives of both Air France and Airbus- and he and several chiefs of France's accident investigations bureau owned substantial stock in the companies- particularly Airbus. Much of this stock was held in the names of various family members and shell corporations. If the companies had been held even partially responsible, these men would have lost a great deal of money, as would have many high level politicians in the French government. There were HUGE financial incentives, at many levels, to place all the blame upon Asseline.
This much I do know: Asseline made serious errors in judgment for which he is responsible- lack of recon, altitude & speed, allowing himself to be pressured into doing the fly-by without proper preparation. He has admitted these mistakes and paid for them. But...
The black boxes shown in court were clearly NOT the ones from the plane and many questionable and/or unauthorized persons DID have access to them at various times in the investigation. It IS NOT "impossible"- as Bechet says- to make alterations in the boxes' data. Not easy, but not impossible. There are several "small" inconsistencies and anomalies throughout the entire accident report which have not been explained sufficiently for any critically-thinking investigator...STILL.
The crew did NOT make sure all the passengers were out before exiting themselves as per protocol, and then misinformed the captain that everyone was out.
Anytime there are questions suspicions involving large corporations and/or government power, one can usually follow the money to find the truth. The rich stay rich because they are manipulative, greedy, throat-cutting bastards who will literally do ANYTHING, trash anyone, to protect/increase their wealth. This is a sad but fundamental truth lying at the heart of human nature. I, personally, do not agree with the conclusions reached in this aircraft accident report. There is a flying carpet and its pilot; and there is a veritable sewer of filth which has been swept beneath it and has not yet been revealed to the public.
Captain is The Best. I don't know how passenger survived. Totaly miracle.
ReplyDeleteSorry but the pilot is at fault. as a pilot my self the rules are for made for a reason they are not to be broken by a pilot for his own or anyone's purpose. 500 feet is the law it is not simple a suggestion. There is a very good reason for it. As a pilot you study this rule and there are many rules. You must learn and follow the rules otherwise you may DIE or kill someone else and die.This one fact that Michael choose to fly at 100ft that Michael performed as the pilot in charge of this Aircraft is sufficient to place the guilt firmly in his lap. Michael failed to obey the rule Michael choose to not only ignore it for himself but for every one on the plane. His choice to put the safety of the passengers at risk was and is the defining point I wish to make. Even if no one had died even if there had been no accident he would have and should have been charged with endangering the safety of the passengers. This and another point i wish to make the fact that most pilots would have performed a procedure called a go around when approaching an airport that you are unfamiliar with. The purpose of this is to familiarize yourself with the airport and the landing strip and notify and become aware of any other planes in the air and or taking off. He did none of this which can be fine given he contacted the tower first. However the fact he had never flown to this airport previously. This alone would give me as a pilot cause to do a go around. Why well to see were i am landing first to know that what i have been given as a map of the airport is infarct correct.That the runway I am landing on has no trucks parked on it performing maintenance or potholes that have not been repaired or reported. Now he was not planning on landing so these were of no interest to him.So then what safety reason would he have to go around? Well to see if like i said a truck were parked on the runway or if the runway at the end had trees which were not on the map that he had. instead of only 30ft trees they could have easily been larger. The point is that again instead of having the safety of his passengers as his first concern it was to perform the flyby. Pilots are charged with the safety of their passengers first and foremost. Safety is the first thing I learned and the last from my instructors. Foremost in my mind when I fly is safety not only form anyone flying with me but also for myself. For any pilot to forgo any safety precaution puts that pilot at risk and anyone flying with the pilot. This is why Michael in the end is were the blame ends up being put. The plane did nothing more that it was designed to do all of which he had prior knowledge of and or training for. The fact the plane took over in the end should have been of no concern to him and his passengers had he followed the rules and flown at 500ft. He choose to break the rule and it cost some lives plane and simple. I am sorry that their may be other factors that may say hey if the plane had performed better and had not taken over he may have been able to fly over the trees and been able to safely land the plane. The fact is that this kind of statement does not negate the fact that he was breaking the rules. and the rule he broke was the defining factor that caused the accident. Even if his boss said fly at 100ft or you will lose your job he should not have flown at that height. Not unless their was prior approval by the proper authorities that made the rules that allowed for him to break it.
ReplyDeleteSorry but the pilot is at fault. as a pilot my self the rules are for made for a reason they are not to be broken by a pilot for his own or anyone's purpose. 500 feet is the law it is not simple a suggestion. There is a very good reason for it. As a pilot you study this rule and there are many rules. You must learn and follow the rules otherwise you may DIE or kill someone else and die.This one fact that Michael choose to fly at 100ft that Michael performed as the pilot in charge of this Aircraft is sufficient to place the guilt firmly in his lap. Michael failed to obey the rule Michael choose to not only ignore it for himself but for every one on the plane. His choice to put the safety of the passengers at risk was and is the defining point I wish to make. Even if no one had died even if there had been no accident he would have and should have been charged with endangering the safety of the passengers. This and another point i wish to make the fact that most pilots would have performed a procedure called a go around when approaching an airport that you are unfamiliar with. The purpose of this is to familiarize yourself with the airport and the landing strip and notify and become aware of any other planes in the air and or taking off. He did none of this which can be fine given he contacted the tower first. However the fact he had never flown to this airport previously. This alone would give me as a pilot cause to do a go around. Why well to see were i am landing first to know that what i have been given as a map of the airport is infarct correct.That the runway I am landing on has no trucks parked on it performing maintenance or potholes that have not been repaired or reported. Now he was not planning on landing so these were of no interest to him.So then what safety reason would he have to go around? Well to see if like i said a truck were parked on the runway or if the runway at the end had trees which were not on the map that he had. instead of only 30ft trees they could have easily been larger. The point is that again instead of having the safety of his passengers as his first concern it was to perform the flyby. Pilots are charged with the safety of their passengers first and foremost. Safety is the first thing I learned and the last from my instructors. Foremost in my mind when I fly is safety not only form anyone flying with me but also for myself. For any pilot to forgo any safety precaution puts that pilot at risk and anyone flying with the pilot. This is why Michael in the end is were the blame ends up being put. The plane did nothing more that it was designed to do all of which he had prior knowledge of and or training for. The fact the plane took over in the end should have been of no concern to him and his passengers had he followed the rules and flown at 500ft. He choose to break the rule and it cost some lives plane and simple. I am sorry that their may be other factors that may say hey if the plane had performed better and had not taken over he may have been able to fly over the trees and been able to safely land the plane. The fact is that this kind of statement does not negate the fact that he was breaking the rules. and the rule he broke was the defining factor that caused the accident. Even if his boss said fly at 100ft or you will lose your job he should not have flown at that height. Not unless their was prior approval by the proper authorities that made the rules that allowed for him to break it.
ReplyDelete