Pittsextra
The platform speakers at each session of the seminar were selected for their specialist knowledge in relevant fields and to generate debate. SOP.
The audience was not. The seminar was open to anyone, including non-members.
I spoke from the floor in two of the sessions.
Did you offer your opinion(s)?
I think there was mirth on the lawyers side that they in fact argue the points around this issue depending upon which side of the argument they find themselves on case by case.
Lawyers were free to express their personal opinions at the seminar.
When engaged in court proceedings they are under a professional duty to represent their client's interests to the best of their skill and ability. That includes relying upon any point of law which assists their client even if they happen to disagree with that law. Their personal views are wholly irrelevant when acting in a professional capacity. They would immediately be told very firmly by the Judge not to express personal opinions if they were silly enough to try.
the focus of thinking was with commercial aviation.
That is not correct.
The controversial Court of Appeal decision which was widely discussed at the seminar (and which I explained above) arose from the crash of a privately owned Tiger Moth flown by a PPL.
The focus was upon the implications for aviation safety.
The CA decision applies to both private and commercial aviation.
Many people, including some aviators, do not understand the wider aviation safety issues. Some can be encouraged to consider the wider issues; others are unwilling or unable to do so.
You are, of course, free to regard either or both of those assertions as "probably quite arrogant".
Some may think there is an irony in you accusing anyone of arrogance, even of the 'probably quite' variety.
Non-contentious information extracted from aviation accident reports has been used in civil proceedings for at least 40 years to my knowledge.
That is not the issue which the Court of Appeal had to decide, and was not the topic of the seminar.
Two separate issues arise from the Court of Appeal's decision.
- Fairness in civil proceedings.
- Whether it will hamper future accident investigations and, in consequence, diminish the ability of the AAIB to make safety recommendations – for the reasons submitted by the Chief Inspector AAIB which I summarised above. Some of his points apply to commercial aviation; others apply to all aviation.
The first is primarily of interest to people involved in civil proceedings, voluntarily or otherwise, and their lawyers.
The second should be of concern to anyone concerned about aviation safety.
.