Pittsextra
The irony is that having read Article 14 ….. that Article has the title "protection of sensitive safety information" and then continues in paragraph 3 that notwithstanding all of paragraphs 1 & 2, records can be disclosed if the administration of justice decides it should be...
Paragraph 3:
Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, the administration of justice or the authority competent to decide on the disclosure of records according to national law may decide that the benefits of the disclosure of the records referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 for any other purposes permitted by law outweigh the adverse domestic and international impact that such action may have on that or any future safety investigation.
Member States may decide to limit the cases in which such a decision of disclosure may be taken, while respecting the legal acts of the Union.
That follows the wording in the Chicago Convention. The corresponding provision in the Chicago convention is followed by this explanatory note:
Note -
Information contained in the records listed above, which includes information given voluntarily by persons interviewed during the investigation of an accident or incident, could be utilized inappropriately for subsequent disciplinary, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings.
If such information is distributed, it may, in the future, no longer be openly disclosed to investigators.
Lack of access to such information would impede the investigation process and seriously affect flight safety.
it would seem quite odd and ultimately pointless to have para 1 & 2 of Article 14 if para 3 drives a coach and horses between it
I don't agree that para 3 drives a coach and horses through paras 1 & 2, nor that it makes those paras ultimately pointless.
No disclosure
unless is IMHO better (in flight safety terms) than having no restrictions at all.
especially because one might well believe that those with the ability to pull the trigger on para.3 are very likely not to have much in the way of an aviation background.
I understand the argument.
Some would add 'and not fully understand the adverse impact that disclosure may have on that or future safety investigations and the consequent adverse impact upon future flight safety.
It's clear that there are also some people with an 'aviation background' who haven't fully thought through the consequences that may flow from AAIB reports/material being used for a purpose for which they were not intended.
That said, informed opinion is also divided on the issue.
Doesn't that then become less to do with aviation safety and more to do with process?
If by 'process' you mean legal proceedings, then arguably yes.
However, we have previously disagreed (in the other Hunter thread) about the potential adverse effect upon AAIB investigations, and ultimately future flight safety, if those in a position to assist decline to do so (or are reluctant to be full and frank) in case their assistance is subsequently used against them.
For some people, the ongoing argument is whether the public interest is best served by the AAIB being able to obtain as much information as possible (see sentences in bold above) or by criminal prosecution.
My response is intentionally general, as my previous posts in both threads have been.
I express no opinion about the Shoreham matter.