Originally Posted by
jcjeant
Hi,
Methink it's not exactly the same.
One side .. we have a judge telling (verdict) that the mechanic as to be aware (before the 25 July 2000) that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences.
On the other side we have the BEA (after the 25 July 2000) telling that a tyre blow can have catastrophic consequences and so ask the Concorde be grounded until technical services find a remedy for have (again?) a safe plane regarding consequences of blow tyre (s)
How one can ask to the mechanic to be aware of a thing the BEA and AAIB were not aware
Ah, but now you are comparing things that are, methinks, not exactly the same.
The legal test (I believe, although may not be exactly the same in French law) for the mechanics actions is "forseeable harm". Not forseeable death, and not the
actual death that occurred being forseeable - simply that the action was dangerous and could cause (non-trivial) harm. The court decided yes.
For an aircraft mechanic, I would say that a tyre burst causing harm should be obvious. They have killed before Concorde, and since, and no doubt will again.
They have also caused hull losses before, and since, although it is rare - but hull loss is not required to be forseeable, only some harm.
For the regulator (not actually BEA), on the other hand, the question you are asking (and the court too) is should they have forseen that a burst tyre could cause massive fuel tank hole and consequent fatal fire risk, and as a result required tyre and/or tank modifications. The court decided no. I would agree. Unprecedented - see PBLs articles for far better explanation than I could write.
So, two different decisions - but the questions were not actually the same, so no contradiction.
[ Also note that whilst one might believe the court decision to be correct, that does not mean that one has to also believe that a manslaughter prosecution is the right thing for aviation safety. ]