PBL
You and others may wish to restrict your discussions to non-deliberate cases, but my interest is broader.
Understood.
I suspect that many non-deliberate cases form a relatively easy part for many of us.
That’s interesting.
I say that because I find instances where someone did not intend to cause death, injury or damage (even though that was the result of his actions/inactions) more difficult than instances where someone intended to cause death, injury or damage. I find the latter relatively straight-forward.
I agree with you (of course) that there are issues of what can be used as evidence in most jurisdictions
In my view, the issues start at an earlier stage than that in an aviation context.
Given that the ultimate purpose of air accident investigation is to prevent similar accidents in the future, it’s essential that those involved co-operate fully and frankly with the accident investigators, which includes volunteering all relevant information and answering questions truthfully and fully.
If what they say may in due course be used against them in a criminal court, then IMHO they must be warned. That’s a well-established principle of the legal systems of most (all?) developed countries.
In many instances, such a warning would lead to people either declining to answer any questions or being cautious/selective about what they say, or even not answering honestly, because they fear being prosecuted and/or being sent to prison.
If that happened, it would IMHO hinder effective accident investigation and, in consequence, be detrimental to future flight safety.
Re the 5th paragraph of the JR: “Recognising that under certain circumstances, including acts of sabotage and willful or particularly egregious reckless conduct, criminal investigations and prosecutions may be appropriate.”
The signatories do not concede gross negligence as an exception.
I note (post 72) you think exceptions for gross negligence manslaughter might have to be made also.
Opinions will obviously differ, and may depend upon whether the following propositions contained in the JR are accepted as valid:
“Criminal investigations can and do hinder the critical information gathering portions of an accident investigations, and subsequently interfere with successful prevention of future aviation industry accidents.” (From point 1)
“Increasing safety in the aviation industry is a greater benefit to society than seeking criminal punishment for those “guilty” of human error or tragic mistakes.” (From point 2)
Just a Grunt
(the average punter) …… might think it a bit patronising to be told that because what pilots do is so incredibly cutting-edge, they have protection from the law that isn't available to everyone else.
I’m not sure anyone has claimed that as a justification.
The issue (IMHO) is well summarised in points 1 and 2 above.
Whether or not you agree with those propositions is a obviously a matter for you.
FL