French Concorde crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
wings folded
Hello. I can appreciate your concern with the word, "Blame". So it may be just a parochial exercise, this thread. My understanding of the word carries some unfortunate connotations, unsuitable for the Industry.
Blame, as generally utilized in our culture, means a 'focused' responsibility, such that an issue can be 'put to rest'. It unfortunately creates a mind set in the culture that suggests "finis". Similar to another word I detest, "Closure", it shuts down what can and should flow from a common recognition of evidence, cause, and 'rehabilitation'. Rehabilitation, in the sense of "corrective" measures is important to aviation.
So it may seem to some that a 'criminal' trial creates the aura of finality. If such is the case, perhaps mitigation of cause is left behind. Progress is left at the Courthouse steps, if you will. A civil proceeding is expected to focus on 'blame'; in this case the venue seeks to "make whole". This is about money, of course, a cause that can distract logic and reason in favor of a "Payday".
Here, there is no "running" of statutes re: Death, and Fraud. These "run" in perpetuity. To each his own, of course, and the hope remains that safety will always improve.
regards
bear
Hello. I can appreciate your concern with the word, "Blame". So it may be just a parochial exercise, this thread. My understanding of the word carries some unfortunate connotations, unsuitable for the Industry.
Blame, as generally utilized in our culture, means a 'focused' responsibility, such that an issue can be 'put to rest'. It unfortunately creates a mind set in the culture that suggests "finis". Similar to another word I detest, "Closure", it shuts down what can and should flow from a common recognition of evidence, cause, and 'rehabilitation'. Rehabilitation, in the sense of "corrective" measures is important to aviation.
So it may seem to some that a 'criminal' trial creates the aura of finality. If such is the case, perhaps mitigation of cause is left behind. Progress is left at the Courthouse steps, if you will. A civil proceeding is expected to focus on 'blame'; in this case the venue seeks to "make whole". This is about money, of course, a cause that can distract logic and reason in favor of a "Payday".
Here, there is no "running" of statutes re: Death, and Fraud. These "run" in perpetuity. To each his own, of course, and the hope remains that safety will always improve.
regards
bear
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little loath to prolong the geopolitical history argument - as it is, at most, tangential to the discussion at hand - but I have to jump in here...
Incorrect. See :
Socialism in One Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was Trotsky who continued to push for global revolution. Stalin, if anything, backed off from that position - in real terms he was something of a Slavic nationalist who used the proto-totalitarian system in place in the USSR at the time for his own ends.
I don't think there was a strategist in the world who believed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would last once Hitler had achieved his ambitions in Western Europe, and so it came to be. I think both Hitler and Stalin themselves were well aware that the pact served only to buy a few years to resolve the struggles they were involved in at the present time, and that conflict was at some point inevitable - I'd go so far as to say that the only likely difference of opinion between Hitler and Stalin was who the victor would be when Nazi Germany inevitably attempted to expand eastwards.
I'd say that Roosevelt was remarkably prescient when it came to some things - he correctly ascertained that as long as the contemporary "Imperial" powers continued to squabble over resources, the result would be endless conflict, interspersed with short periods of fragile peace. The difference of opinion lies within whether Roosevelt the idealist genuinely believed he could achieve the end result of a United Nations organisation co-operating to resolve disputes between sovereign states, or whether he privately accepted that the Imperial powers should give way to US dominance over world politics once the war was over. The wild card turned out to be a vengeful Stalin sweeping across Eastern Europe to defeat Nazi Germany from the East and effectively demanding political dominance over the region as reparation, and so with Roosevelt dead and the more bullish Truman taking his place, what the world ended up with was the same "Great Game" - squabbles over resources and minor conflicts (prevented from escalating by the ever-present threat of nuclear global annihilation) - but with the major players being the USSR and the US as opposed to the old Imperial powers.
Ironically, it was the political descendents of the more conservative isolationists in the US that ended up using military power to promote US corporate interests in the last decades of the 20th Century.
Now that I can agree with. However one of the things that bothered me so much about the way mainstream Western media presented the events of the Second World War in the latter half of the 20th century was the way that the efforts of the USSR on the Eastern Front were barely mentioned, except in the kind of in-depth books and documentaries that only those who were truly interested in the details would bother with.
In terms of aviation history there's a whole mountain of things to delve through to explain the postwar rivalries between Western countries and the US and UK in particular, stemming from a postwar treaty that dictated that civil aircraft would be primarily sourced from the US (which in 1945 found itself with a shedload of C-47s that were surplus to civil requirements), and for how long that treaty should be adhered to (an argument that rumbled on for decades). That's possibly for another time though, and belongs firmly in AH&N.
So, in an attempt to steer back on track, what we have to accept in this case is that the legal systems in Continental Europe work differently from the UK/US model. One of the first things my history teacher told us when we moved into modern history was that the legal systems on the Continent tended to work with a presumption of guilt, with the onus on the defendant to prove their innocence - which is in opposition to the UK/US model where the presumption is "innocent until proven guilty". This is the fundamental difference in approach from which all others are derived, along with characteristics peculiar to the state concerned - note that despite the Marshall Plan, the US did not demand that the French and (then) West German legal systems be redefined along Anglo/US lines.
Our cousin in Arizona posits that there are indisputable facts that could be pressed into an argument for negligence on the part of Air France. Nevertheless, all the evidence points to the fact that despite the missing spacer, the allegedly dubious weight calculations and the tailwind, Concorde F-BTSC would have made a successful takeoff with ample options for later fault correction had the tyre not been destroyed by the debris from the preceding DC-10, causing a failure of the fuel tank. The debris lay in F-BTSC's path because it was made of the incorrect material and shoddily fitted, and as such, the operator of the DC-10 and the mechanic concerned are considered primarily liable, with a smaller - though considerable - degree of liability placed at the door of EADS for not being strict enough in applying preventative measures in terms of fuel tank failure as the result of a tyre burst. Neither Continental's, nor EADS's lawyers were able to prove that their clients were not culpable with the evidence at hand.
That's the lie of the land at present, with Continental and EADS sharing corporate responsibility for the disaster. To me that in itself shreds any attempt to paint the result as "the French protecting their own" (paraphrased).
Socialism in One Country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was Trotsky who continued to push for global revolution. Stalin, if anything, backed off from that position - in real terms he was something of a Slavic nationalist who used the proto-totalitarian system in place in the USSR at the time for his own ends.
I don't think there was a strategist in the world who believed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would last once Hitler had achieved his ambitions in Western Europe, and so it came to be. I think both Hitler and Stalin themselves were well aware that the pact served only to buy a few years to resolve the struggles they were involved in at the present time, and that conflict was at some point inevitable - I'd go so far as to say that the only likely difference of opinion between Hitler and Stalin was who the victor would be when Nazi Germany inevitably attempted to expand eastwards.
I'd say that Roosevelt was remarkably prescient when it came to some things - he correctly ascertained that as long as the contemporary "Imperial" powers continued to squabble over resources, the result would be endless conflict, interspersed with short periods of fragile peace. The difference of opinion lies within whether Roosevelt the idealist genuinely believed he could achieve the end result of a United Nations organisation co-operating to resolve disputes between sovereign states, or whether he privately accepted that the Imperial powers should give way to US dominance over world politics once the war was over. The wild card turned out to be a vengeful Stalin sweeping across Eastern Europe to defeat Nazi Germany from the East and effectively demanding political dominance over the region as reparation, and so with Roosevelt dead and the more bullish Truman taking his place, what the world ended up with was the same "Great Game" - squabbles over resources and minor conflicts (prevented from escalating by the ever-present threat of nuclear global annihilation) - but with the major players being the USSR and the US as opposed to the old Imperial powers.
Ironically, it was the political descendents of the more conservative isolationists in the US that ended up using military power to promote US corporate interests in the last decades of the 20th Century.
Many, many of the consequences of the USA's entry into WW2 were beneficial to the world in general and the US population and its leadership deserves our gratitude for that, not least for the US lives expended in the process.
In terms of aviation history there's a whole mountain of things to delve through to explain the postwar rivalries between Western countries and the US and UK in particular, stemming from a postwar treaty that dictated that civil aircraft would be primarily sourced from the US (which in 1945 found itself with a shedload of C-47s that were surplus to civil requirements), and for how long that treaty should be adhered to (an argument that rumbled on for decades). That's possibly for another time though, and belongs firmly in AH&N.
So, in an attempt to steer back on track, what we have to accept in this case is that the legal systems in Continental Europe work differently from the UK/US model. One of the first things my history teacher told us when we moved into modern history was that the legal systems on the Continent tended to work with a presumption of guilt, with the onus on the defendant to prove their innocence - which is in opposition to the UK/US model where the presumption is "innocent until proven guilty". This is the fundamental difference in approach from which all others are derived, along with characteristics peculiar to the state concerned - note that despite the Marshall Plan, the US did not demand that the French and (then) West German legal systems be redefined along Anglo/US lines.
Our cousin in Arizona posits that there are indisputable facts that could be pressed into an argument for negligence on the part of Air France. Nevertheless, all the evidence points to the fact that despite the missing spacer, the allegedly dubious weight calculations and the tailwind, Concorde F-BTSC would have made a successful takeoff with ample options for later fault correction had the tyre not been destroyed by the debris from the preceding DC-10, causing a failure of the fuel tank. The debris lay in F-BTSC's path because it was made of the incorrect material and shoddily fitted, and as such, the operator of the DC-10 and the mechanic concerned are considered primarily liable, with a smaller - though considerable - degree of liability placed at the door of EADS for not being strict enough in applying preventative measures in terms of fuel tank failure as the result of a tyre burst. Neither Continental's, nor EADS's lawyers were able to prove that their clients were not culpable with the evidence at hand.
That's the lie of the land at present, with Continental and EADS sharing corporate responsibility for the disaster. To me that in itself shreds any attempt to paint the result as "the French protecting their own" (paraphrased).
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 19th Dec 2010 at 15:38.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
The outcome of a trial in court of law can produce only one thing:
Judicial truth
So it may seem to some that a 'criminal' trial creates the aura of finality. If such is the case, perhaps mitigation of cause is left behind. Progress is left at the Courthouse steps, if you will.
Judicial truth
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aye, the definition of "Judicial" is 'Opinion'.
Instead of focusing the admirable power of the Court to "punish", or even loosely "scapegoat", how more practical to use some of that power to forge a more broad administrative weight on the Regulators, operators, and owners.
Wishful
bear
Instead of focusing the admirable power of the Court to "punish", or even loosely "scapegoat", how more practical to use some of that power to forge a more broad administrative weight on the Regulators, operators, and owners.
Wishful
bear
Safety Concerns
I gotta agree with you summary above
but for the ending I have a question
for what purpose ?
certainly not to satsfy the future of safe flight
I gotta agree with you summary above
but for the ending I have a question
As to the French case and blame. You can use what terms you like but the fact is a sentence has been issued and rightly so for this tragedy.
certainly not to satsfy the future of safe flight
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cause ?
When the crash occurred, within the first two? days, I remember reading a newspaper report that the Cleaner responsible for clearing the runways of foreign objects, had not done so before the Concorde takeoff, as there was a union meeting in the canteen which he had gone to instead.
Has that ever been substantiated, I do appreciate that even if found to be true, it would have no bearing on any aspect of the investigation or subsequent blame, for reasons of national security.
Has that ever been substantiated, I do appreciate that even if found to be true, it would have no bearing on any aspect of the investigation or subsequent blame, for reasons of national security.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bearfoil
I went to some lengths to explain that the trial was not "criminal".
Now, French procedure may be hard to grasp for those not familiar with it.
I have done my best to explain it in the context of this tragic case.
Justice is rarely in place for the purpose of assuring finality, if by finality one is thinking of the bereaved families of the victims, for example. Are people affected in some way better off by attributing cause to "X" or to "Y"?
It is awkward, nay some would say sordid, that in the ultimate, people, corporate bodies or agencies have to be found responsible for the causes of events such as this.
But that is the way that the compensation mechanism flows.
So it may seem to some that a 'criminal' trial creates the aura of finality.
Now, French procedure may be hard to grasp for those not familiar with it.
I have done my best to explain it in the context of this tragic case.
Justice is rarely in place for the purpose of assuring finality, if by finality one is thinking of the bereaved families of the victims, for example. Are people affected in some way better off by attributing cause to "X" or to "Y"?
It is awkward, nay some would say sordid, that in the ultimate, people, corporate bodies or agencies have to be found responsible for the causes of events such as this.
But that is the way that the compensation mechanism flows.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look, flight safety this flight safety that.
if you want people to adhere to procedures there must also be accountability. Genuine mistakes or errors are one thing and aptly covered by experts such as Reason and Dekker.
Going soft on downright foolhardy behaviour as in this case does not serve flight safety.
It is also easy: responsibility + accountability = high levels of safety
no responsibility + no accountability = bloody disaster
if you want people to adhere to procedures there must also be accountability. Genuine mistakes or errors are one thing and aptly covered by experts such as Reason and Dekker.
Going soft on downright foolhardy behaviour as in this case does not serve flight safety.
It is also easy: responsibility + accountability = high levels of safety
no responsibility + no accountability = bloody disaster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why was a FOD check not carried out prior to take off ?Why was a FOD check not carried out prior to take off ?
And maybe that next airplane would be one of a handful in the world that, as it would turn out, could suffer a fatal crash if a tire hit the metal strip.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also easy: responsibility + accountability = high levels of safety
Someone has tried to sidetrack the issue by arguing whether the case against the employee was civil or criminal. It doesn't matter from a safety perspective.
An employee by definition is an agent of his or her employer, unless the employee is doing something that has no connection whatsoever with their employment (and some would even debate that caveat).
If the agent commits a wrong the proper person to hold liable for that wrong is not the agent but the employer. It's the employer who holds controlling power over the duties of the agent and the terms and conditions of employment; that's the definition of being an agent and an employee.
As I said before I don't have a problem with holding legal corporation responsible. They chose to do business in France they play by French rules. No one forced them to do business there. But holding the employee in any way responsible for the obligation that properly rested on the employer is garbage. It's bunk. He is indeed a "poor bugger".
Worse, it doesn't promote safety. The agent's wrong did not occur in isolation from his superiors, his training, his education, and the scope and duties of his employment. Holding him accountable does nothing to prevent the next guy in the exact same situation from doing the exact same thing. Punishing or blaming the wrong person doesn't promote safety in the slightest. It's the opposite of accountability.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry mountain bear your logic doesn't hold up.
The individual is licensed i.e. approved to standard. With that licence comes responsibility and accountability. If he was forced at gunpoint to do such a bad job then yes the company should also be accountable.
You are accountable for your actions and in fact EASA regulations are specific and I would imagine FAA as well:
Now you need to understand aviation regulations before going on about company agent nonsense.
An airline must make use of approved maintenance organisations, those maintenance organisations must employ licensed staff.
Licensed staff must ensure the work is performed to a standard before certifying for such. This is the basic ICAO format.
What you are advocating in your moment of madness is that nobody is responsible even when they have completely failed in their individual task. A task that the regulation says they are responsible for.
The individual is licensed i.e. approved to standard. With that licence comes responsibility and accountability. If he was forced at gunpoint to do such a bad job then yes the company should also be accountable.
You are accountable for your actions and in fact EASA regulations are specific and I would imagine FAA as well:
(c) Any person or organisation performing maintenance shall be responsible for the tasks performed
An airline must make use of approved maintenance organisations, those maintenance organisations must employ licensed staff.
Licensed staff must ensure the work is performed to a standard before certifying for such. This is the basic ICAO format.
What you are advocating in your moment of madness is that nobody is responsible even when they have completely failed in their individual task. A task that the regulation says they are responsible for.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is obvious, as it appears does Iron Duck, that the Continental mechanic did not exercise his duty of care to perform the repair according to applicable procedure.
That's why this ruling against the employee doesn't pass the smell test. It's 100% bunk. If the ruling is in accordance with French law and French case law then that law is bunk.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mountain bear, where did you get this nonsense. The care of duty comes with the licence and with following company procedures which would state, do it by the book.
what are you smoking?
in addition FAA regs state that:
How anyone can justify no punishment here after 100+ innocent souls have perished amazes me. Complete dereliction of duty. Sorry buts that reality
what are you smoking?
in addition FAA regs state that:
(b) A certificated mechanic may not exercise the privileges of his certificate and rating unless he understands the current instructions of the manufacturer, and the maintenance manuals, for the specific operation concerned.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The care of duty comes with the licence and with following company procedures which would state, do it by the book.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you come from outside the aviation industry.
Aviation regulations are set up in tiers. Each tier acts as a further safeguard to prevent errors and omissions. An airline has a legal obligation to use an approved maintenance organisation. An approved maintenance organisation must supply approved tools, parts, manuals etc. in order to remain approved and in order for the qualified individuals to do their job. Part of whom are qualified "licensed" mechanics.
Licensed mechanics are required to follow the manuals and procedures as supplied by the employer, the approved maintenance organisation.
Now my response is based upon the following facts:
Continental are approved, supplied all the relevant data, supplied at least one qualified person and that person for whatever reason chose not to follow standard procedures.
If any of that is incorrect then you may have a splitting of the responsibility. You can't however just delete dereliction of duty by the person performing the job on some fanciful whim of a theory that just doesn't align with the regulations (law) in place.
Does not punishing drunk drivers aid road safety?
Aviation regulations are set up in tiers. Each tier acts as a further safeguard to prevent errors and omissions. An airline has a legal obligation to use an approved maintenance organisation. An approved maintenance organisation must supply approved tools, parts, manuals etc. in order to remain approved and in order for the qualified individuals to do their job. Part of whom are qualified "licensed" mechanics.
Licensed mechanics are required to follow the manuals and procedures as supplied by the employer, the approved maintenance organisation.
Now my response is based upon the following facts:
Continental are approved, supplied all the relevant data, supplied at least one qualified person and that person for whatever reason chose not to follow standard procedures.
If any of that is incorrect then you may have a splitting of the responsibility. You can't however just delete dereliction of duty by the person performing the job on some fanciful whim of a theory that just doesn't align with the regulations (law) in place.
Does not punishing drunk drivers aid road safety?
Last edited by Safety Concerns; 19th Dec 2010 at 18:12.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and Gentlemen,
the discussion has suddenly turned interesting, focusing on some real issues!
Safety Concerns,
I am not sure you understand the phenomenon of "migration to the boundary". Have you ever, ever driven a car one kph over a speed limit? One time? Two times? Most people I know do it often, of course where it's "safe" to do so, and then mainly because they don't notice. "Your honor, the defendant was going 1 kph too fast!" "Is that true, lad?" "I don't know, your honor" "OK, guilty. Because of the ensuing chain of events, 100 people died. Two years, suspended sentence!" Just? You may say so, I don't.
Do you have an argument that would persuade me, other than invoking your intuition?
Mountain Bear,
under UK law, every legal person has a duty of care. That goes for corporate "legal persons" as well as for real persons. In this case, the mechanic. Apparently under French law also. I would be very surprised to find that under (various state versions of) US law, there is no such duty. Suppose you are an auto worker on an assembly line, and you just don't bother to tighten the wheel bolts because you don't care, even though you are supposed to, and the test driver gets in the car and crashes it and injures herself. Are you really suggesting that US law doesn't prosecute the assembly line worker for not attending to his duty of care? I don't think you'll find that is the case at all.
PBL
the discussion has suddenly turned interesting, focusing on some real issues!
Safety Concerns,
I am not sure you understand the phenomenon of "migration to the boundary". Have you ever, ever driven a car one kph over a speed limit? One time? Two times? Most people I know do it often, of course where it's "safe" to do so, and then mainly because they don't notice. "Your honor, the defendant was going 1 kph too fast!" "Is that true, lad?" "I don't know, your honor" "OK, guilty. Because of the ensuing chain of events, 100 people died. Two years, suspended sentence!" Just? You may say so, I don't.
Do you have an argument that would persuade me, other than invoking your intuition?
Mountain Bear,
under UK law, every legal person has a duty of care. That goes for corporate "legal persons" as well as for real persons. In this case, the mechanic. Apparently under French law also. I would be very surprised to find that under (various state versions of) US law, there is no such duty. Suppose you are an auto worker on an assembly line, and you just don't bother to tighten the wheel bolts because you don't care, even though you are supposed to, and the test driver gets in the car and crashes it and injures herself. Are you really suggesting that US law doesn't prosecute the assembly line worker for not attending to his duty of care? I don't think you'll find that is the case at all.
PBL
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly a geographical difference in H&S culture?
Under UK law, the duty of care would apply to everyone involved in the maintenance process, up to and including the CEO of the organisation responsible for undertaking the process and the "owner(s)" of the complex system(s) involved.
In a sentence, the enforcing authorities (eg HSE) line everyone up, the biggest fish is generally at the top of list.
Under UK law, the duty of care would apply to everyone involved in the maintenance process, up to and including the CEO of the organisation responsible for undertaking the process and the "owner(s)" of the complex system(s) involved.
In a sentence, the enforcing authorities (eg HSE) line everyone up, the biggest fish is generally at the top of list.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL you are making the same assumption in your counter argument, the person wasn't aware of his indiscretion.
This one was. He knew what he was doing was wrong. You wouldn't dream of being so relaxed with a drunk driver who just killed a few kids and it wouldn't aid road safety by letting him off.
Now if somebody spiked his lemonade we may have a different discussion
This one was. He knew what he was doing was wrong. You wouldn't dream of being so relaxed with a drunk driver who just killed a few kids and it wouldn't aid road safety by letting him off.
Now if somebody spiked his lemonade we may have a different discussion
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
PBL you are making the same assumption in your counter argument, the person wasn't aware of his indiscretion.
This one was. He knew what he was doing was wrong.
This one was. He knew what he was doing was wrong.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
You wouldn't dream of being so relaxed with a drunk driver who just killed a few kids and it wouldn't aid road safety by letting him off.
Repairing a duct with titanium rather than with stainless steel is not so related. Witness the people on this thread who think that the effect would have been the same with stainless steel, and witness the extensive experimentation conducted by the BEA under contract to show that it wasn't the same.
Bad analogy. The mechanic could have judged that engendering an accident due to his choice was extremely improbable (in aerospace terms) and I dare say that had he done so he would have been right!
PBL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn't just about the material it was about his whole irresponsible approach to the job.
Wrong material, wrong procedure, wrong method. How many wrongs do you need before we move well away from MTTB.
It is this false prophecy of no blame that is actually causing more problems than it solves.
Please don't become ridiculous now on drink driving. Everybody has a duty not to drink and drive long before the side effects of drink take a hold. You drink, you drive, you get caught, you deserve what you get.
You ignore procedures, you use wrong ,materials, you are sloppy, you cause an accident, you deserve what you get.
It serves no useful purpose particularly as far as flight safety is concerned to send out a message of no matter what you do you are not responsible.
It is irresponsible of those propagating such words because the effect on flight safety may well be the opposite to that intended.
Just culture is what we aim for. If there are sensible mitigating circumstances no problem at all with your comments.
However tonight in Paderborn, an aircraft will most likely be serviced. The person performing that work especially in these conditions should have a sense of responsibility and accountability about them as this helps to do the job properly. God help us if they went to work drunk or went to work with an I don't care attitude because I am not responsible anyway. MTTb is.
Wrong material, wrong procedure, wrong method. How many wrongs do you need before we move well away from MTTB.
It is this false prophecy of no blame that is actually causing more problems than it solves.
Please don't become ridiculous now on drink driving. Everybody has a duty not to drink and drive long before the side effects of drink take a hold. You drink, you drive, you get caught, you deserve what you get.
You ignore procedures, you use wrong ,materials, you are sloppy, you cause an accident, you deserve what you get.
It serves no useful purpose particularly as far as flight safety is concerned to send out a message of no matter what you do you are not responsible.
It is irresponsible of those propagating such words because the effect on flight safety may well be the opposite to that intended.
Just culture is what we aim for. If there are sensible mitigating circumstances no problem at all with your comments.
However tonight in Paderborn, an aircraft will most likely be serviced. The person performing that work especially in these conditions should have a sense of responsibility and accountability about them as this helps to do the job properly. God help us if they went to work drunk or went to work with an I don't care attitude because I am not responsible anyway. MTTb is.