Originally Posted by
AlphaZuluRomeo
In short: My position?
- Transparency is the best cure against skepticism.
- Impartiality is the best course to counter partiality.
Agree totally (and with the rest of your post)
- a quote from the BEA: "The BEA nevertheless regrets the difficulties encountered by the AAIB investigators and their advisers." => That doesn't feel like "all is normal" to me.
Well, quite! And publishing that remark was about the limit of what they could do. Their remit is strictly defined in terms of technical/human factors accident investigation - neither does it extend to passing public comment on other (e.g. judicial) aspects of the case (unless explicitly asked to do so), nor should it.
- two quotes from the AAIB: "Co-operation between the BEA and the AAIB enabled the AAIB to make an effective contribution to the investigation."
"In other areas [than the judicial 'blockade'], whilst the UK Accredited Representative and his Advisors agree with the evidence presented in the BEA report, the comments represent differences in the weighting of the conclusions."
Again - like the BEA, the AAIB are essentially a branch of the civil service and would have been well aware that their Gallic colleagues' hands were tied on the matter - just as it would have been had the roles been reversed.