Originally Posted by
A0283
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 prosecutors 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.
Thank you for explaining this.
Different countries do things differently. The French system isn't intrinsically wrong - it is just different to the British / USA system. You make a good point that this could perhaps be better explained.
One thing it may be work considering is that the flow of information from the criminal investigation process will be taking some pressure off the accident investigation process, and allowing this to proceed out of the media spotlight and public speculation. Criminal investigative bodies are used to intense media pressure, accident investigation bodies somewhat less so.
I have lost zero confidence in pilots as a result of this crash. The odds speak for themselves.
I have lost a bit of confidence however as a result of some of the attitudes displayed here:
1. Clutching at straws postulating increasingly more implausible explanations. I know you wouldn't do this when faced with an inflight emergency, so why do it here?
2. The insistence that no information come out until all the facts are "properly" assembled. With all due respect, there are other stakeholders involved. Politicians are answerable to citizens (voters). And aviation is answerable to its customers (passengers). Aviation does not live in some sort of bubble somehow divorced from the rest of society.
Please also remember that following recent tragic events in Paris, French public sentiment will be heightened towards any form of terrorist action. The French government and authorities have to deal with this reality.