Facts, Lessons, Damages, Punishment - Questions
One of the lessons of this and previous accident investigations has been, that it is not clear to the international public how BEA and French public "Procureur" investigations are operating side by side during aerospace accident investigations. Where goals and work run in parallel, where they overlap, how independence is assured - while working with a substantial set of common evidence.
This understanding has at least two sides. First, part of the public not taking the time to do (at least some of) the required homework. Second, the way in which French authorities make clear to especially the international audience, how they operate side by side.
It appears that both public and authorities have to improve their act. So we should appreciate the work of some pprune members to help us with our homework. And I hope more is forthcoming.
The officials on the French side appear to be doing their job, but not with respect to improving understanding about what they do in general and how that works out in this specific case. Not an easy case because the focus changed from an accident to, as it seems, an act with intent.
As a consequence there is a lot of confusion with the general public, and in for instance some pprune posts we can see posters judging the procureur investigation by accident investigation standards.
A partially separate and partially overlapping issue is leaking information. In this case there have been a number of 'serious' leaks. The strict control of CVR and FDR information, including legal and regulatory back up of this, suggests that the probability of leaks originating from the accident investigation side was low. The fact that a high French military (in some countries part of the police is military - I wonder which side it was) person or even official is said to be the source, is in line with that probability. This means that information control on the procureurs side can clearly conflict with the accident investigation side. And also conflicts with the legal requirements on the accident investigation side.
One question that I have had for many many years now is how 'serious' serious is. We do not have the transcripts or other prove available, but in spite of that there are judgements all around, and a lot of damage to the feelings of friends and relatives of the victims may have already been done. Lack of information from the official side and confusion appear to be extremely painful. I wonder if preliminary information that may have to be changed later would reduce or increase the suffering of victims and relatives, and also on the "improvement of safety" efforts on the aerospace professionals side.
So how sure are we, that the present framework is better than one with more and earlier official transparancy and openness. More transparancy by earlier and more complete official presentation and publication of information that includes how that information should be judged at the time of publication. Transparancy that reduces the pressure on all parties - investigators, procureurs, prosecutor, victims and relatives, authorities, relatives, professionals, and the general audience.
Heads of state, government ministers, high ranking police and military - we only need to look over the last two years - have made statements that were out of order, factually and technically incorrect, etc. I have great admiration for the way in which investigators have responded to this. But it should not be necessary for them to do this.
The context today is much different than it was years ago. Modern public requirements and technology are quickly eroding the foundation on which the present framework is built.
This post basically contains questions. In this case the lead is French. But the questions are of course the same or similar for other recent cases in other countries. However, we learn by accident investigations, so lets keep the scope confined to this case of GermanWings9525. I hope some people can help me with improving my 'homework' by sharing their insights and views.
Last edited by A0283; 30th Mar 2015 at 17:46.
Reason: Insert "Procureur" instead of 'public prosecutor', because too much is lost in translation.