I thank you both, Lemurian and wings folded, for explaining some of the concepts of French law. Amongst other things, we do work for a French lawyer (maybe the very same one referred to by David Learmount, cited in an earlier contribution to this thread) so I myself am not entirely as ignorant as I may sometimes seem (or so I hope!).
Maybe rather than use the word "crime", which seems at least in this discussion to be overloaded, you might be happier were I to use the word "offence"? The translation of english "offence" into French is simple: "crime ou delit". As far as I can tell, the US concept of misdemeanor does not square with "delit", but the system is similar in that it acknowledges two grades of punishable offences. The concept is not present in English law, as far as I know, but there is a distinction between three kinds of criminal offences, summary offences (tried without jury), indictable offences (for which a jury is required and which you might want to call "crimes") and those in between (which may be dealt with under one or the other process). I think all systems acknowledge distinctions between categories of offence.
Lemurian, Mr. Taylor is a mechanic, not an engineer. An engineer in the US is someone who has passed the relevant professional examinations and is entitled to write the initials "P.E." after hisher name. Mr. Taylor is not such, neither is anyone working on the shop floor of a aeroengine maintenance facility. They are all mechanics. If such a person were to be a P.E., there should be no doubt at all, despite what MountainBear and countless legal judgements about US corporate responsibility on the Internet say, that this person is personally, in his capacity as P.E., responsible for the quality of the repair and the consequences of it. That is what being professionally accredited means in the US, as elsewhere.
wings folded, thank you for taking the time to explain carefully, in more detail, what these French legal concepts entail. I do believe I know most of what you say - I don't think I am completely "unclear" on the concepts - but yours is a valuable contribution to the debate for those who are both unaccustomed to French law and willing to learn. (There are also some contributors who abuse PPRuNe's hospitality, as you remark, but I don't think we really need concern ourselves with them, do you?)
Originally Posted by wings folded
For those who believe that airline safety is enhanced by a "no blame culture", I choose not to be part of that wider debate, because it goes beyond my skill or competence.
Nevertheless, I would encourage you to do so, please, because I and many others regard the conflicts between "no-blame culture" and just-recompense to be one of the pressing issues in aviation safety nowadays. The more people who think about the issues, the more chance we have of reaching a general resolution! And no one, just no one, is expert in all sides of the debate.
I am professionally a safety-critical systems expert, concentrating mainly but not exclusively (as you see) on computer-based systems. I have eminent colleagues with world-wide reputations who refuse to engage with the debate on the basis that they are "engineers" with interests in "safety" and compensation is a matter of "law". And "no blame culture" is apparently appropriate for engineers, and thereby safety, and nothing else. They apparently do not care to think about the hundreds of families who lost loved ones, and their breadwinners, in an accident and who, justly, according to thousands of years of established law with firm underpinnings in fairness and social welfare, ask for compensation and ask for someone to adjudicate their compensation. My engineering colleagues must go after the "take him for all he's got" extremists, and my legal colleagues must ask the engineers to have a heart for the families of those lost. That is the only way that I can see to go forward.
A fine debate, gentlemen and ladies! Thank you for helping to raise the standard!
PBL