bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11923556
abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 … 086278.htm
OK, all those who didn’t see this conclusion coming ten minutes after the suit was filed raise your hands.
All right class, I want you to look at all those with their hands up and remember to NOT include them in any of your study groups.
So a French court decides a US airline is to blame and “also found three French aviation officials not guilty”.
Quel surprise 
We should find those who certified the ATR-72 guilty for Roselawn considering the FAA trusted the French when they certified the icing conditions for the aircraft.
Air France knew that a rupture of the fuel tank could happen from FOD before this happened. In fact, there was a proposal to install kevlar on the lower wing surface that was rejected and then, after this accident adopted.
Correction, the Kevlar is installed in the fuel cell. A 1989 fuel tank rupture at Dules lead to a recommendation on the kevlar and tire changes back then and it was ignored, until the 2000 accident. Why doesn’t the press mention this?
(a) Because they’re reporting specifically on the outcome of the lawsuit;
(b) Because being an aviation story, the more paragraphs they print, the bigger the chance of screwing things up.
Choose one.
Slaps on the wrist all 'round. . .unless, of course, you’re French.