Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
The problem, slats11, with your argument, is two-fold. First, in France (presumably you are aware of this, but not everyone else necessarily will be), inquiries into civil aviation accidents are much more likely to become criminal matters than in most all other countries. That is, the French regard a civil aviation accident as almost, or nearly, always, a criminal matter from the jump.
Well put, WillowRun. The governing legal framework (and mentality no less) is in many aspects at odds with ICAO principles, e.g. with regard to the authority of the technical investigative body over the evidence. BEA and prosecutors have repeatedly been fighting over the FDR or CVR in the past. As recently as in the aftermath of the 2008 Air New Zealand A320 crash prosecutors interfered with the technical investigation by preventing the BEA from sending the recorder to the United States for read-outs. The BEA's authority over the accident cause determination has also repeatedly been undermined by the executive branch (e.g. when days after the 1988 A320 demonstration flight crash the French transport minister declared that technical problems of the new aircraft could be ruled out).
The fact that the executive branch now set precedence by leaking the content of the CVR to the public contrary to Annex 13 5.12 does not bolster my expectation in a proper investigation according to ICAO standards.
Undoubtedly the BEA's job has not gotten any easier, now that the executive branch has already shared their determination of the cause of accident with a world audience.