Originally Posted by
peekay4
Ian W:
That is not true generally, and especially not true in France, where criminal inquiry is initiated when there is a fatal accident. ** In major fatal aircraft accidents there will be two (or more) inquiries: one by the judiciary and one by the transportation safety board (BEA).
Even if a crime had been committed, the two inquiries continue to run in parallel.
The BEA will continue to investigate the crash and may make safety recommendations to prevent similar scenarios in the future. E.g., they may recommend rule changes with respect to pilots's mental health, requirements around minimum number of crew in the cockpit, changes to door locking system, etc.
The judicial investigation will also continue with the aim in assigning fault and determining civil or criminal liabilities.
In France the judicial investigation has priority over the safety investigation.
(** Strictly speaking, Annex 13 is not law in any country and does not apply to any accident. Annex 13 isn't binding to any signatory. Countries are free to adopt parts of Annex 13 into it's own procedures. In particular, major provisions of Annex 13 do not apply in France -- under any circumstances.)
Peekay4
I think we are in general agreement
Pukin Dog
No criminal investigative authority from any country is going to sit on its hands in the face of evidence being uncovered that suggests that a purposeful, criminal act may have been committed, particularly one that causes the deaths of others, and wait for months or years for the aircraft accident investigators to complete their investigation and then only act if the conclusion of the accident investigators rules out all other possibilities. It would be idiotic for them to do so.
Let us be perfectly plain. If a mass murder has happened and the criminal investigators believe that the air accident investigators are withholding evidence from them or impeding their criminal investigation, then I would expect the investigators themselves to find themselves charged with a criminal offense.
There seems to be a blank here in people's understanding of what has happened and the cross impact of State criminal law and ICAO treaties. As far as I am aware a UN (ICAO) treaty recommendation
never trumps State criminal law especially in cases where large numbers have died (been killed). People here may not like that possibly because they are worried that the breach of trust by one of their number will rub off on all flight crew. But that is what will happen, as Peekay4 says, the criminal and aviation inquiries will continue in parallel using their own rules of engagement and obtaining different levels of information. Without the criminal inquiry much of the background information on Lubitz would not have been found that was obtained by police acting for the criminal investigation with police powers not the air accident investigation powers of the French BEA. (This also happened with the pilots of MH370 with no complaint from anyone here)
I cannot see that there is any way that criminal investigation will not take over. Step in their way and you could find yourself imprisoned for impeding police carrying out a criminal inquiry into what
they see as mass murder. The FBI would do precisely the same had a similar crash occurred in the USA.