Who Speaks for the Dead ?

[falcon900]

Chug,
Whilst I suspect that there would be little daylight between our respective views of the Cunningham report in particular, I must take issue with your assertion that the lack of a safety case for the seat demands an automatic conclusion that the Seat, and hence the aircraft are unairworthy. As a simple matter of logic, it does not.

Allow me to explain with an everyday, if in the circumstances somewhat arcane example. My car requires an MoT test each year, If I fail to submit the car for inspection, it is illegal for me to drive it on the road, as a matter of law due to the statutory requirement to have a valid test certificate. The question of whether the vehicle is roadworthy is an entirely separate one, and if it was roadworthy the day before the certificate expired, it is highly likely that it would still be roadworthy the day after, notwithstanding it was now illegal to drive it. Equally, it could have a valid test certificate and be unroadworthy due to the emergence of an issue during the year.
Were I to drive the car without a valid certificate and be apprehended, I would be guilty of driving without a valid certificate, but could only be prosecuted for driving with an unroadworthy vehicle if actual fault could be identified. The lack of the document does not of itself render the vehicle unroadworthy.

As far as the Cunningham case is concerned, I do not accept that the lack of the safety case per se automatically demands the conclusion that the aircraft was unairworthy. I do however accept that a reasonable person upon examining the particular reasons for the lack of a safety case should have concluded that the aircraft was unairworthy. A distinction without a difference perhaps in the circumstances of the Cunningham case, but an important distinction more generally.