Originally Posted by aviador novato
I read both texts and again I think that the approach is too generic.
I think it is about right, for the reasons below.
Originally Posted by aviador novato
Why such generic and imprecise statements against criminal persecution in aviation ?
There are two main points, which are generic, but not at all imprecise.
The first is that pursuing accidents with criminal proceedings ensures that accident participants, who could otherwise contribute to safety prophylaxis by sharing their knowledge of what went on, will first concentrate on their defence (or avoiding prosecution in the first place) and not share that otherwise invaluable knowledge.
This is not conjecture. This is fact. It is a phenomenon not only in aviation, but also, say, in rail travel. My colleagues at IfEV in Braunschweig, who are involved in many proceedings concerning rail accidents in Germany, say it is a pervasive problem and have specific examples to show it.
And this hinders learning from accidents. There is a very specific example from the Brühl railway accident in my talk at the Bieleschweig 9 Workshop in Hamburg in May 2007 (see
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de
-> Bieleschweig Workshops -> 9th Workshop, Hamburg, May 2007
for the slides).
The second is that if criminal proceedings in the wake of accidents persistently and pervasively miss the mark, as we know they do from many other cases besides Linate, then there is a case for a general moratorium on criminal proceedings until there is some means of ensuring that the "wrong" people do not get blamed. This is why, for example, the Governor of Illinois, while a death-penalty supporter, instituted a moratorium on executions until the courts can be sure that no mistakes are made.
Originally Posted by aviador novato
It is important to point out the contradictions:
There are no contradictions (I speak from authority).
Originally Posted by aviador novato
So the discussion should rest only on what could be seen as irresponsible and careless acts or not, shouldn't it ? The issue is wrongly addressed...
This is a very important point. But I don't think one can establish that the issue is wrongly addressed. There are specific models as to who is reponsible, and these models differ. For example, in the U.K. there is a new legal concept of corporate manslaughter, whereby a company can be held responsible for unlawful killing, and thus the directors suffere the consequences. Contrast this with, say, the Maglev accident, in which, despite significant concerns about the safety design of the system, the people who will appear before the courts are, as usual, operators on duty and associated people "at the pointy end".
Were the U.K. model to be applied to the GOL/Legacy midair, then the Air Force top command would be busy preparing their defence.
So I don't think one can legitimately claim that the issue is wrongly addressed, rather that the issue is differently addressed in different jurisdictions and the question is who has got it right. And if there is no way of settling the matter who has got it right (and it does seem to me to depend to some extent on different views of the polity), then it can be argued that a moratorium is an appropriate response.
PBL