French Concorde crash
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still, are you completely sure that he would not be strictly liable were he to be a P.E.?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, folks, let's not get testy with each other. These issues are subtle, and we don't always have in mind all sides of them when we are thinking and writing. That is, after all, the point of discussing them.
Except for
whom I want to assure that I did know what I was saying here (not just from the report, but from colleagues), I won't respond by name, in order to highlight the issues.
American law is relevant to this case in that we are discussing comparative law - obviously! Comparative legal studies are important in order to gain an firmer understanding of legal concepts in individual jurisdictions and to related them to more-universal concepts, such as that of responsibility and just compensation, which concern us all, all over the world.
The Concorde matter is not baked and over and done with, so one cannot just assign it to the dustbin of French jurisprudence. It has opened the Pandora's box - thank heavens - in a way in which previous purely-French incidents such as Air Inter at Mt. St.-Odile did not.
American law places heavy duty of care on companies to ensure the appropriate behavior of employees, and correspondingly lower duty of care on employees. I raised the example of playing with gun during one's employment to ask what duties of care do exist on the individual level. The answer is that such an act is clearly criminal. But this is a chicken-egg problem. The act is clearly criminal because there is a clear duty of care and violating it has such severe consequences. That is the difference between, say, negligence and gross negligence in English law. If the question is, as it was, whether an individual employee incurs a duty of care when employed, the answer is a clear yes.
It also transpires that certain licensed or certified professionals incur a duty of care under US laws when performing professional tasks as professionals. Such as medical doctors and, I believe, P.E.s. Being a licensed mechanic seems here to be a boundary case, from what I read of the discussion so far.
The concepts are very similar, although the words may not be: crime ou delit; crime or misdemeanor; summary offence, indictable offence or "in between". Duty of care, standard of care, negligence, gross negligence (so - a bit missing here - what are the standards for and relevance of judgements of negligence in French law?). Compensation follows responsibility in US law, in British law, in French law. There is a lot of commonality of concepts.
But the application appears to be divergent. It is judged that US laws would likely not have considered the individual-employee's duty of care (but a boundary case as he was a licensed professional) in the way in which the French court did. Well, maybe, but I think we all know that it is hard to tell unless a case is brought, tried and judged. It does seem to be the case that a tribunal correctionel considers criminal sanctions (suspended jail terms, fines) as well as assigning responsibility (and therefore responsibility for compensation), functions which are usually separated in common-law jurisdictions into trials for offences and civil suits.
What is the point of all this? The point is that, if there is a common basis in concepts and function of all this law, then this basis can be codified into international agreement, through ICAO and this will bring clarity and uniformity world-wide into handling issues such as duties of care, just compensation, and accident investigation in a way which minimises conflict between these procedures. And the conflict at the moment is huge, as I and other commentators have been pointing out in public for at least half a decade. And it is not just in aviation. It seems to be enshrined in civil-law jurisdictions.
For example, consider the MagLev demo-track accident in Lathen in 2007. I won't reiterate it here, instead referring people to http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/Biel...inB9Slides.pdf . The horrendous accident was investigated by - the State Prosecution Service, for that is who investigates rail accidents. They do so primarily to see whether an indictable offence has been committed by someone. At the end of the day on which the accident occurred, the State Prosecutor was confident enough to say that all indications were that the accident was due to human error, by which he meant a procedural error by some driver or controller, singular or plural. Even the newspapers had figured out by Day 2 that there were obviously some system issues. Not only were there some system issues, but some of them were the very same as involved elsewhere, such as the Glenbrook accident in New South Wales, Australia, which had been serious enough to involve a Royal Commission.
I'll stop here with the account of the accident. Interested readers can follow the link. The point is that in some areas the conflict between learning and implementing safety lessons, and legal retribution, is far higher than it appears to be in aviation.
Aviation does have some successes in reducing this conflict. One late non-lamented correspondent was going on here about why wasn't Air France being held to account for this accident? The answer, obvious to anyone who knows anything about these matters, is that the responsibility did and does indeed lie with the airline, under international agreement (ICAO again), and Air France (or, rather, their insurers) has already paid out compensation commensurate with that responsibility, 10 years ago. That works quite well. I see no reason to imagine we cannot have the same success with an attempt to make international law concerning duties of care and offences versus liabilities, in such a way as to minimise adverse influence on the causal investigation of accidents.
PBL
Except for
Originally Posted by noske
I think you misunderstood the BEA report regarding the significance of titanium vs. stainless steel.
American law is relevant to this case in that we are discussing comparative law - obviously! Comparative legal studies are important in order to gain an firmer understanding of legal concepts in individual jurisdictions and to related them to more-universal concepts, such as that of responsibility and just compensation, which concern us all, all over the world.
The Concorde matter is not baked and over and done with, so one cannot just assign it to the dustbin of French jurisprudence. It has opened the Pandora's box - thank heavens - in a way in which previous purely-French incidents such as Air Inter at Mt. St.-Odile did not.
American law places heavy duty of care on companies to ensure the appropriate behavior of employees, and correspondingly lower duty of care on employees. I raised the example of playing with gun during one's employment to ask what duties of care do exist on the individual level. The answer is that such an act is clearly criminal. But this is a chicken-egg problem. The act is clearly criminal because there is a clear duty of care and violating it has such severe consequences. That is the difference between, say, negligence and gross negligence in English law. If the question is, as it was, whether an individual employee incurs a duty of care when employed, the answer is a clear yes.
It also transpires that certain licensed or certified professionals incur a duty of care under US laws when performing professional tasks as professionals. Such as medical doctors and, I believe, P.E.s. Being a licensed mechanic seems here to be a boundary case, from what I read of the discussion so far.
The concepts are very similar, although the words may not be: crime ou delit; crime or misdemeanor; summary offence, indictable offence or "in between". Duty of care, standard of care, negligence, gross negligence (so - a bit missing here - what are the standards for and relevance of judgements of negligence in French law?). Compensation follows responsibility in US law, in British law, in French law. There is a lot of commonality of concepts.
But the application appears to be divergent. It is judged that US laws would likely not have considered the individual-employee's duty of care (but a boundary case as he was a licensed professional) in the way in which the French court did. Well, maybe, but I think we all know that it is hard to tell unless a case is brought, tried and judged. It does seem to be the case that a tribunal correctionel considers criminal sanctions (suspended jail terms, fines) as well as assigning responsibility (and therefore responsibility for compensation), functions which are usually separated in common-law jurisdictions into trials for offences and civil suits.
What is the point of all this? The point is that, if there is a common basis in concepts and function of all this law, then this basis can be codified into international agreement, through ICAO and this will bring clarity and uniformity world-wide into handling issues such as duties of care, just compensation, and accident investigation in a way which minimises conflict between these procedures. And the conflict at the moment is huge, as I and other commentators have been pointing out in public for at least half a decade. And it is not just in aviation. It seems to be enshrined in civil-law jurisdictions.
For example, consider the MagLev demo-track accident in Lathen in 2007. I won't reiterate it here, instead referring people to http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/Biel...inB9Slides.pdf . The horrendous accident was investigated by - the State Prosecution Service, for that is who investigates rail accidents. They do so primarily to see whether an indictable offence has been committed by someone. At the end of the day on which the accident occurred, the State Prosecutor was confident enough to say that all indications were that the accident was due to human error, by which he meant a procedural error by some driver or controller, singular or plural. Even the newspapers had figured out by Day 2 that there were obviously some system issues. Not only were there some system issues, but some of them were the very same as involved elsewhere, such as the Glenbrook accident in New South Wales, Australia, which had been serious enough to involve a Royal Commission.
I'll stop here with the account of the accident. Interested readers can follow the link. The point is that in some areas the conflict between learning and implementing safety lessons, and legal retribution, is far higher than it appears to be in aviation.
Aviation does have some successes in reducing this conflict. One late non-lamented correspondent was going on here about why wasn't Air France being held to account for this accident? The answer, obvious to anyone who knows anything about these matters, is that the responsibility did and does indeed lie with the airline, under international agreement (ICAO again), and Air France (or, rather, their insurers) has already paid out compensation commensurate with that responsibility, 10 years ago. That works quite well. I see no reason to imagine we cannot have the same success with an attempt to make international law concerning duties of care and offences versus liabilities, in such a way as to minimise adverse influence on the causal investigation of accidents.
PBL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American law produces safer aviation outcomes than European law.
What we have done is take a pragmatic look at the safety record which, as I have said to the Committee when they visited the Safety Regulation Group, is second to none in Europe and twice as good as the Americans.
The UK CAA has always regulated a system of shared responsibility because the benefits are well known.
Government tasks the regulator
regulator tasks industry (by producing regulations)
industry has responsibilities and is accountable
key individuals are licensed (pilots and engineers)
they are responsible and accountable for their actions
This approach has consistently produced the safest aviation community year after year.
The argument is in fact quite simple and does not require academic intervention particularly by those far removed from the day to day reality of attempting to fly safely. It is not something than can be quantified around some nice warm coffee table, through a few abstract theories whilst the producer of that safety record is outside in 2 feet of snow at -5C.
The american legal approach does not produce a safer aviation community as claimed, it does however produce more dollars in the legal aftermath.
Iron duke hit the nail on the head because all those involved in aviation in Britain realise one thing:
They are directly responsible for everything they do. They cannot run off to mummy employer to take the rap if they foul up. Iron duke likes it that way, I like it that way. It is bracing, it does concentrate the mind and it does produce the safest aviation environment.
Last edited by Safety Concerns; 21st Dec 2010 at 06:22.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I do not think this is an end in itself or in other words it prevents an individual (family passenger or crew member) to initiate a lawsuit against Air France for additional damages compensation or seek other convictions
Of course if a subrogation was signed .. (renunciation of right to sue in court after receiving compensation) the case is closed.
Many time those compensations are used as a gag.
The answer, obvious to anyone who knows anything about these matters, is that the responsibility did and does indeed lie with the airline, under international agreement (ICAO again), and Air France (or, rather, their insurers) has already paid out compensation commensurate with that responsibility, 10 years ago
Of course if a subrogation was signed .. (renunciation of right to sue in court after receiving compensation) the case is closed.
Many time those compensations are used as a gag.
More bang for your buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see were having the usual 'we're American, other countries laws don't apply to us' spat. I wonder if the engineer had been in the 3rd world whether anyone would have bothered to defend him.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Safety Concerns's answer in http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...ml#post6134862 to the question of whether US law or British law produces a "safer" aviation environment does take some beating!
However, I might suggest that the answer to the question
is not as obvious as it may seem.
First, I've talked to them, too, back in the days when I was a public busybody and the reboutable Mrs. Dunwoody was running it. I told them back in 1998 that if they didn't take my advice on the NERC development I was afraid we'd be back the next year repeating the show. They didn't. NERC came on-line five years later, as I recall.
Second, you can of course tell them anything you believe, without being grilled on the evidence, because none of them are scientists or engineers, unfortunately. If I had been on the committee, I would have asked the witness for the measurements he had taken which showed conclusively that the British approach led to greater safety. I would ask him how he measured safety, for one thing. For on the most obvious statistics, namely rates of major crashes, it most certainly does not rest! They are the same, modulo rarity of events: virtually none.
PBL
However, I might suggest that the answer to the question
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
So who do I believe? An anonymous american poster or a statement made under oath to a UK Transport Select Committee hearing on the workings of the UK CAA.
First, I've talked to them, too, back in the days when I was a public busybody and the reboutable Mrs. Dunwoody was running it. I told them back in 1998 that if they didn't take my advice on the NERC development I was afraid we'd be back the next year repeating the show. They didn't. NERC came on-line five years later, as I recall.
Second, you can of course tell them anything you believe, without being grilled on the evidence, because none of them are scientists or engineers, unfortunately. If I had been on the committee, I would have asked the witness for the measurements he had taken which showed conclusively that the British approach led to greater safety. I would ask him how he measured safety, for one thing. For on the most obvious statistics, namely rates of major crashes, it most certainly does not rest! They are the same, modulo rarity of events: virtually none.
PBL
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
the witness was the UK CAA's Head of Safety Regulation.
PBL
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mountain Bear
If you are reading this, I apologise for apparently being so thick as not to have realised that your posts were an attempt to discuss in the abstract the relative merits of US and French law in accidents such as that which happened to Concorde, with a view to improving air safety and the international legal situation.
If you had stated this explicitly at first, I would probably not have interpreted your remarks as being the "jingoistic tripe" I have read so many, many times on this and other international lists and fora populated by your countrymen.
I would be very interested in following such an abstract discussion - I might learn something. I am grateful to PBL for teaching me MttB - a concept of direct utility to me.
As a person not professionally involved in aviation I am only directly affected by it when I buy an air ticket, or if an aircraft crashes into my house, or if I am killed, injured or suffer damage to my property as a result of an object such as a titanium strip falling from an aircraft and hitting me - an entirely foreseeable consequence, as there have been many instances of people being so harmed.
If that strip had not fallen from the DC10 at that moment but perhaps a few seconds later, and burst the tyre of a vehicle on the main road adjoining CDG, causing the driver to lose control and initiate a subsequent fatal multi-vehicle crash, or several hours later on the approach to its destination had fallen and injured someone below, should the licensed mechanic have been responsible for his bodged repair and the foreseeable damage that ensued, or not? Please tell me.
As I understand it, you are arguing that he should not. Or perhaps he should, given that there have been sufficient instances of persons on the ground being harmed by objects dropped from aircraft that the "average man" might be able to foresee them?
And so, why should it be that the mechanic might be responsible for the harm caused by the strip dropping from the sky onto someone, but not the harm caused by Concorde rolling over it and crashing as a result?
If you are reading this, I apologise for apparently being so thick as not to have realised that your posts were an attempt to discuss in the abstract the relative merits of US and French law in accidents such as that which happened to Concorde, with a view to improving air safety and the international legal situation.
If you had stated this explicitly at first, I would probably not have interpreted your remarks as being the "jingoistic tripe" I have read so many, many times on this and other international lists and fora populated by your countrymen.
I would be very interested in following such an abstract discussion - I might learn something. I am grateful to PBL for teaching me MttB - a concept of direct utility to me.
As a person not professionally involved in aviation I am only directly affected by it when I buy an air ticket, or if an aircraft crashes into my house, or if I am killed, injured or suffer damage to my property as a result of an object such as a titanium strip falling from an aircraft and hitting me - an entirely foreseeable consequence, as there have been many instances of people being so harmed.
If that strip had not fallen from the DC10 at that moment but perhaps a few seconds later, and burst the tyre of a vehicle on the main road adjoining CDG, causing the driver to lose control and initiate a subsequent fatal multi-vehicle crash, or several hours later on the approach to its destination had fallen and injured someone below, should the licensed mechanic have been responsible for his bodged repair and the foreseeable damage that ensued, or not? Please tell me.
As I understand it, you are arguing that he should not. Or perhaps he should, given that there have been sufficient instances of persons on the ground being harmed by objects dropped from aircraft that the "average man" might be able to foresee them?
And so, why should it be that the mechanic might be responsible for the harm caused by the strip dropping from the sky onto someone, but not the harm caused by Concorde rolling over it and crashing as a result?
Last edited by Iron Duck; 21st Dec 2010 at 09:36. Reason: Changed text of example
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a name and a CV we might have more of an idea, but without that I would give much more weight to opinions of those like PBL who clearly and provably do know what they are talking about.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comments are minuted as Mike Bell, Group Director of Safety Regulation.
I believe he was/is a pilot and a chartered engineer.
I assume that's acceptable considering that when he spoke them, he did so in an open and public forum, not hiding behind anonymity and was well aware of the potential consequences of misleading people.
I believe he was/is a pilot and a chartered engineer.
I assume that's acceptable considering that when he spoke them, he did so in an open and public forum, not hiding behind anonymity and was well aware of the potential consequences of misleading people.
Safety Concerns
Way too many possible messages in this sentence, ripe for negative interpretations. 
I would suggest some editing
I assume that's acceptable considering that when he spoke them, he did so in an open and public forum, not hiding behind anonymity and was well aware of the potential consequences of misleading people.
I would suggest some editing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American law produces safer aviation outcomes than European law. Despite several invitations by myself over the last several pages of posts not a single individual has explained how European law produces better outcomes.
American?
Or a different one?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL
In aviation terms, will you agree with me that the Warsaw Convention as modified by the Montreal Convention are the prevailing authorities?.
Both are universal.
In both cases, as regards transported passengers.
The topic becomes a little more complicated when there are victims on the ground, such as happened at Gonesse. And that is not an unlikely scenario.
Warsaw and Montreal cannot apply to victims on the ground, obviously, because there never was a contract of transport between the carrier and the victim,
I know a little bit about how the insurance fandango worked, but I can not be too specific, for that would breach my confidentiality undertakings.
Air France was indemnified for the loss of the airframe within days.
The "ayants droit" or inheritors for non French speaking readers, of passengers, were offered indemities according to Warsaw and Montreal, by Air France, with, of course their insurers behind them.
Those indemities were by and large accepted. Acceptance included an undertaking that no further process could be undertaken. (That is not the same phenomenom as subrogation, as mentioned elsewhere, but the distinction is not so important here)
Comparative legal studies are important in order to gain an firmer understanding of legal concepts in individual jurisdictions and to related them to more-universal concepts, such as that of responsibility and just compensation, which concern us all, all over the world.
Both are universal.
In both cases, as regards transported passengers.
The topic becomes a little more complicated when there are victims on the ground, such as happened at Gonesse. And that is not an unlikely scenario.
Warsaw and Montreal cannot apply to victims on the ground, obviously, because there never was a contract of transport between the carrier and the victim,
I know a little bit about how the insurance fandango worked, but I can not be too specific, for that would breach my confidentiality undertakings.
Air France was indemnified for the loss of the airframe within days.
The "ayants droit" or inheritors for non French speaking readers, of passengers, were offered indemities according to Warsaw and Montreal, by Air France, with, of course their insurers behind them.
Those indemities were by and large accepted. Acceptance included an undertaking that no further process could be undertaken. (That is not the same phenomenom as subrogation, as mentioned elsewhere, but the distinction is not so important here)
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant :
No, you're wrong. This verdict is now as per French law a *test case* ( we say "le jugement fait jurisprudence")The claims must follow the findings of the court... unless the appeal court reverses it. No more claims can be asked outside the verdict.
PBL :
In my opinion, finding a common ground with the different jurisdictions could well be a chore but there are two aspects that could be investigated as far as the French - and those who have a similar *code* ( that means all the ex-colonies, in particular ) are concerned :
1/- Accept or discuss the absolute prerequisite in French law : responsibility of each individual , I've asked a lawyer who told me that an employment contract constitutes the basis of an employee's responsibility : He's signed it, he's bound by it to a set of ethics and standards he cannot ignore... On the other hand, the company using his services is responsible for the quality of the worker's actions...here again, responsibility.
In this light, the verdict makes sense, whether we like it or not.
2/- Explore why , should an accident, a mishap... happen in the commercial navy, the first jurisdiction that will be set up is the *Tribunal Maritime Commercial*, in which, mariners, officers, mechanics...etc... and captains are judged by professionals,hence their peers (With the assistance of a magistrate) and the constitution of the tribunal reflects the hierarchical level of the defendants... unfortunately, that's not all as the *civil* suit - here, dealing with the financial claims -, needs to be appreciated by a *tribunal correctionel* assessing respective liabilities from the Maritime Tribunal's findings.
If I remember correctly, That tribunal dates from the days of the Royal merchant navy..Why that system hadn't been carried out to the aviation field is beyond my understanding.
A very interesting thread I have to thank you for...if one could ignore the imbecilic self-righteous ramblings from a place in North America.
I do not think this is an end in itself or in other words it prevents an individual (family passenger or crew member) to initiate a lawsuit against Air France for additional damages compensation or seek other convictions
PBL :
In my opinion, finding a common ground with the different jurisdictions could well be a chore but there are two aspects that could be investigated as far as the French - and those who have a similar *code* ( that means all the ex-colonies, in particular ) are concerned :
1/- Accept or discuss the absolute prerequisite in French law : responsibility of each individual , I've asked a lawyer who told me that an employment contract constitutes the basis of an employee's responsibility : He's signed it, he's bound by it to a set of ethics and standards he cannot ignore... On the other hand, the company using his services is responsible for the quality of the worker's actions...here again, responsibility.
In this light, the verdict makes sense, whether we like it or not.
2/- Explore why , should an accident, a mishap... happen in the commercial navy, the first jurisdiction that will be set up is the *Tribunal Maritime Commercial*, in which, mariners, officers, mechanics...etc... and captains are judged by professionals,hence their peers (With the assistance of a magistrate) and the constitution of the tribunal reflects the hierarchical level of the defendants... unfortunately, that's not all as the *civil* suit - here, dealing with the financial claims -, needs to be appreciated by a *tribunal correctionel* assessing respective liabilities from the Maritime Tribunal's findings.
If I remember correctly, That tribunal dates from the days of the Royal merchant navy..Why that system hadn't been carried out to the aviation field is beyond my understanding.
A very interesting thread I have to thank you for...if one could ignore the imbecilic self-righteous ramblings from a place in North America.
Last edited by Lemurian; 21st Dec 2010 at 21:00.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Let me explain that it was possible to individuals (but before the trial) to initiate a lawsuit against AF or others during the 10 years preceding the trial.
But as explained above in better words than mine ... compensations was paid and accepted (under condition of not undertaking .. bla bla ... )
So .. as I writed .. many time the convention (Warsaw and Montreal) and compensations (insurances) linked are double edged sword as they can be a gag ..
Shut people mouth with money
I do not think this is an end in itself or in other words it prevents an individual (family passenger or crew member) to initiate a lawsuit against Air France for additional damages compensation or seek other convictions No, you're wrong. This verdict is now as per French law a *test case* ( we say "le jugement fait jurisprudence")The claims must follow the findings of the court... unless the appeal court reverses it. No more claims can be asked outside the verdict.
But as explained above in better words than mine ... compensations was paid and accepted (under condition of not undertaking .. bla bla ... )
So .. as I writed .. many time the convention (Warsaw and Montreal) and compensations (insurances) linked are double edged sword as they can be a gag ..
Shut people mouth with money
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant,
Yes, and that's the trial we are discussing the verdict of.
Nice try !
Let me explain that it was possible to individuals (but before the trial) to initiate a lawsuit against AF during the 10 years preceding the trial.
Nice try !
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Again .. I'm not discussing about the trial or the verdict .. but about how a system fo "protect" passengers can be a double edged sword ..or in better words a mouths shutter.
Yes, and that's the trial we are discussing the verdict of.
Nice try !
Nice try !
The foreseeability debate is quite important.
I think the gun analogy does have some relevance.
If you are a technician, you should, through your training and licensing, have an appreciation of why there are approved repairs & procedures. They should also appreciate that engineers will have specified materials and fixing schemes based on analysed requirements and proven testing. You can't change these without approval (e.g. from DA, who may need to confirm there is no impact) and if you do so you should be under no illusions that you should be responsible for the consequences.
In this respect, it was entirely foreseeable that his actions could be detrimental to the airworthiness of the aircraft. For a start the part could have fallen off after the continental aircraft took off, landing in a playground - foreseeable and unacceptable.
I think the gun analogy does have some relevance.
If you are a technician, you should, through your training and licensing, have an appreciation of why there are approved repairs & procedures. They should also appreciate that engineers will have specified materials and fixing schemes based on analysed requirements and proven testing. You can't change these without approval (e.g. from DA, who may need to confirm there is no impact) and if you do so you should be under no illusions that you should be responsible for the consequences.
In this respect, it was entirely foreseeable that his actions could be detrimental to the airworthiness of the aircraft. For a start the part could have fallen off after the continental aircraft took off, landing in a playground - foreseeable and unacceptable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A mechanic is certified to standards set by the regulating authority. It is the Regulating Authority that controls airworthiness and compliance. It is not for the mechanic to make judgments relative to airworthiness, only to comply with "the book".
A/P mechanics are not philosophers, nor do they have authority to make life and death decisions. To impute other than the duty of compliance with Code is to get truly in the weeds. The controlling Authority can issue a 337 for any "Ramp Repair" or not.
An objective judgment is simply that, an opinion with the power of the Court, French, or any other jurisdiction. The takeaway from this unfortunate accident is that to focus "Blame" is far more important than the progress of safety. There is a definite argument to be made that incompetence can lead to disaster. The defining limit of Random chance seems to allow for the perseverance of chasing a theory into the extreme.
The repair was preposterous. If it indeed caused this crash, any theory is plausible.
It is hard to reject the claim that this is proven. Weighed with the unfortunate history of the aircraft's problems in this area specifically, singling out Mr. Taylor to shoulder the brunt makes the process look silly. It relieves the Authority of responsibility paid for with punishment of another. Taylor becomes the Proxy, the goat, for a litany of Manufacturing, Design, and Regulatory issues. The relationships that control are left to blunder on. IMO.
bearfoil
A/P mechanics are not philosophers, nor do they have authority to make life and death decisions. To impute other than the duty of compliance with Code is to get truly in the weeds. The controlling Authority can issue a 337 for any "Ramp Repair" or not.
An objective judgment is simply that, an opinion with the power of the Court, French, or any other jurisdiction. The takeaway from this unfortunate accident is that to focus "Blame" is far more important than the progress of safety. There is a definite argument to be made that incompetence can lead to disaster. The defining limit of Random chance seems to allow for the perseverance of chasing a theory into the extreme.
The repair was preposterous. If it indeed caused this crash, any theory is plausible.
It is hard to reject the claim that this is proven. Weighed with the unfortunate history of the aircraft's problems in this area specifically, singling out Mr. Taylor to shoulder the brunt makes the process look silly. It relieves the Authority of responsibility paid for with punishment of another. Taylor becomes the Proxy, the goat, for a litany of Manufacturing, Design, and Regulatory issues. The relationships that control are left to blunder on. IMO.
bearfoil