I totally disagree with some of those points.
In order to figure out the difficult task by the judiciary system to PROVE that someone had criminal intend (or criminal neglicency), all information gathered about the case is of help.
A criminal shooting someone can be convicted with the help of a video recording coming from a traffic camera, shopping mall cctv, nearby bank security, nearby witness with a video camera (or without one), etc.
Those recordings are not "authorized by a judge" to be used against the criminal in question, but they are available nonetheless. Nobody was "purposely and without the criminal's knowledge" trying to frame him. The recordings just happened to be there.
CVR and DFR existence is known by pilots.
If they want to commit (remember, criminal activities must be "voluntary" to a high degree) criminal activities in an airplane, they should be aware that they are being recorded and should try to disconnect them, commit them outside an airplane in an area without surveillance or do it inside an airplane without such devices.
But CVR and DFR data and analysis should be used for criminal prossecution. As long as pilots (or other crew with access to the cockpit) don't do anything clearly criminal, they are safe.
Civil liabilities, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter and far less clear, I admit. Pilots have the right to refuse to fly an airplane knowing that his actions could be recorded not only in the benefit of safety but also against his interests regarding civil responsabilites.
On the other side, no airline will hire a pilot that refuses to fly that way, as civil aviation requires the recordings.
This is not substantially different from other professions, though.
Engineers are required to deposit their design's plans (a form or "recording their work") independently for just about anything they design (i.e. a bridge or a house). If the bridge falls down, the recording is available and can be used to prosecute him in both, civil and criminal trials.
As long as he didn't do anything very wrong knowingly, he is safe from the criminal charges. But the civil courts are a different matter. At least, he won't go to prison for that, but may end up broke ...
Remember, making a mistake can be your responsability to others, but it is not criminal. If you were in a car accident, it was your fault, and your speedometer (or GPS) signaled 220 km/h on a 100km/h limit ... well, there is a recording, not authorized by a judge, pointing to potential criminal neglicency (the difference in speed is too high for you just to claim that "you didn't notice, it was an accident" w/o further explanation or causes).
Last edited by justme69; 16th Sep 2008 at 23:20.