French Concorde crash
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
Please don't become ridiculous now on drink driving.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
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.
These things are mutable. Whereas I don't think that the likelihood of engendering a fatal accident if one substitutes titanium for stainless steel in an engine-duct repair is so mutable. I rather doubt that anything about stainless steel versus titanium renders the practice of substituting the latter for the former impractical in any sense which affects aviation safety very much.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
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.
PBL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rather doubt that anything about stainless steel versus titanium renders the practice of substituting the latter for the former impractical in any sense which affects aviation safety very much.
The point is not hanging someone for one genuine mistake but here we have a catalogue of conscious decisions that even with the best will in the world cannot be easily ignored or attributed to mttb.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be very surprised to find that under (various state versions of) US law, there is no such duty.
Under US theories of tort liability an employee is only liable for his or her own actions (as opposed to the employer) under two conditions. The first condition is when he or she is acting outside "the scope of his employment". This is a very narrow exception because courts have ruled that even driving drunk while on the job is the employers responsibility not the employees'. The other exception is if the activity is otherwise innately criminal, such as an employee who rapes a client. Those are the only two exceptions.
From an American point of view this case is an easy, cut and dried case. Was he acting within the scope of his employment? Obviously, he was an airline mechanic and he was fixing an airplane. Was his action otherwise innately criminal? Nope, nothing illegal about fixing a plane incorrectly. He would not have been punished in the USA.
You might want to read up on the legal aspects of this case: Valujet 592.
ValuJet Flight 592 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Notice that not a single natural born person was convicted of a crime. But the company was criminally charged and convicted. That's the way we do it here. And I'd argue that it's philosophically the best way to do thing, chest thumping aside.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Where we disagree is who is to blame. You want to blame the natural born person (the mechanic) and I want to blame the legal person (the company). As near as I can tell that is the only substantive difference between us.
In conformance with hundreds of years of case law on the subject, the company is the best person to hold liable because the company is the one in a position of power. It sets the terms and conditions of employment of the employee; it hires and fires; it manages the employee.
To me what you seem to want is the old guild system back where the employee is honor bound by his family traditions to do a good job. What rubbish. Come into the 21st century.
Agreed. That's not the point of our disagreement, however.
Where we disagree is who is to blame. You want to blame the natural born person (the mechanic) and I want to blame the legal person (the company). As near as I can tell that is the only substantive difference between us.
In conformance with hundreds of years of case law on the subject, the company is the best person to hold liable because the company is the one in a position of power. It sets the terms and conditions of employment of the employee; it hires and fires; it manages the employee.
To me what you seem to want is the old guild system back where the employee is honor bound by his family traditions to do a good job. What rubbish. Come into the 21st century.
Where we disagree is who is to blame. You want to blame the natural born person (the mechanic) and I want to blame the legal person (the company). As near as I can tell that is the only substantive difference between us.
In conformance with hundreds of years of case law on the subject, the company is the best person to hold liable because the company is the one in a position of power. It sets the terms and conditions of employment of the employee; it hires and fires; it manages the employee.
To me what you seem to want is the old guild system back where the employee is honor bound by his family traditions to do a good job. What rubbish. Come into the 21st century.
1. in the US you can only really hold the company to account, not an individual employee
2. this is a good thing
I would have thought it best to be able to hold both to account for their actions.
As it stands you're saying a licensed US airline mechanic can do something completely negligent, hence be directly responsible for the loss of 100s of lives and the worst that could happen is that he might loose his job? (I'm talking hypothetically here about an aircraft loss directly attributable to maintenance negligence, not about the concorde/Ti strip incident)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry mountain bear I disagree
The only reason you want the company liable is to extract more dollars even if the situation actually results in more deaths.
Therefore there is a fundamental difference between us. I am seeking the best method of preventing future accidents you are seeking the best way to screw more dollars and whether an event takes place or not is largely irrelevant.
A company is not best placed as it rarely understands the complicated daily business going on around it. This is left to the employee to deal with. Therefore my opinion remains shared responsibility and aligns with the regulations I quoted.
Companies have responsibilities, individuals have responsibilities. To suggest a company is responsible for the actions of an individual who knowingly and irresponsibly ignored approved procedures is nonsense.
The only reason you want the company liable is to extract more dollars even if the situation actually results in more deaths.
Therefore there is a fundamental difference between us. I am seeking the best method of preventing future accidents you are seeking the best way to screw more dollars and whether an event takes place or not is largely irrelevant.
A company is not best placed as it rarely understands the complicated daily business going on around it. This is left to the employee to deal with. Therefore my opinion remains shared responsibility and aligns with the regulations I quoted.
Companies have responsibilities, individuals have responsibilities. To suggest a company is responsible for the actions of an individual who knowingly and irresponsibly ignored approved procedures is nonsense.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MountainBear,
A rhetorically slick comment, but unnecessarily rude and also misleading.
I think you'll find that in many jurisdictions a general duty of care also extends to individuals. If A is employed by a security firm and carries a firearm when on the job, and he decides to show it off to a group of schoolkids taunting him, and he shoots one or two of them, then his employer may well have failed in its duty of care, but are you really suggesting that he walks off scot-free on the basis that he was in employment at the time of the incident? I doubt very much that he could. In many or most states, he would likely be prosecuted, and prosecutors would likely try to establish negligence (assuming no one believes the shooting was deliberate). Negligence is intimately bound with the concept of duty of care, for negligence is breach of that duty.
See, for example, the definition of "criminally negligent homicide" in Tennessee law, at T.P.I. -- CRIM. 7.07
Note in particular the words "standard of care" in:
Safety Concerns,
Far from being nonsense, it is, as MountainBear pointed out, part of the law in most or all US states. A company is liable for the actions of any of its employees acting generally within the remit of their employment. Indeed, if you search for "duty of care" in US law documents on-line, these are the majority of instances you will find.
wings folded,
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by distinguishing a "tribunal correctionnel" from a "cour d'assise". Apparently, this tribunal correctionnel was able to hand down criminal sentences as well as apportion responsibility, and I think that discussion here is concerned mostly with a distinction between criminal act, whereby one is set some kind of punitive sentence for committing the act (often fine or prison), and civil liability, which is concerned mostly with financial compensation to victims for the consequences of an act. The distinction is clear and valid. One person was indeed handed a punitive sentence, in other words was judged guilty of a criminal offence. And it is the appropriateness of that in the context of larger concerns about improving aviation safety with which much of the discussion is concerned.
PBL
Originally Posted by PBL
I would be very surprised to find that under (various state versions of) US law, there is no such duty.
Originally Posted by MountainBear
How does it feel to be surprised this morning? Hopefully it's a good feeling.
I think you'll find that in many jurisdictions a general duty of care also extends to individuals. If A is employed by a security firm and carries a firearm when on the job, and he decides to show it off to a group of schoolkids taunting him, and he shoots one or two of them, then his employer may well have failed in its duty of care, but are you really suggesting that he walks off scot-free on the basis that he was in employment at the time of the incident? I doubt very much that he could. In many or most states, he would likely be prosecuted, and prosecutors would likely try to establish negligence (assuming no one believes the shooting was deliberate). Negligence is intimately bound with the concept of duty of care, for negligence is breach of that duty.
See, for example, the definition of "criminally negligent homicide" in Tennessee law, at T.P.I. -- CRIM. 7.07
Note in particular the words "standard of care" in:
failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
To suggest a company is responsible for the actions of an individual who knowingly and irresponsibly ignored approved procedures is nonsense.
wings folded,
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by distinguishing a "tribunal correctionnel" from a "cour d'assise". Apparently, this tribunal correctionnel was able to hand down criminal sentences as well as apportion responsibility, and I think that discussion here is concerned mostly with a distinction between criminal act, whereby one is set some kind of punitive sentence for committing the act (often fine or prison), and civil liability, which is concerned mostly with financial compensation to victims for the consequences of an act. The distinction is clear and valid. One person was indeed handed a punitive sentence, in other words was judged guilty of a criminal offence. And it is the appropriateness of that in the context of larger concerns about improving aviation safety with which much of the discussion is concerned.
PBL
Last edited by PBL; 20th Dec 2010 at 05:49.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Tribunal Correctionnel apply for trial of a crime with no premeditation or no intention to kill.
If it's premeditation (intention to kill ) this will be a "Cour d'Assise"
It's also a big difference .. as in "Tribunal Correctionnel" the verdict come from the judges .. and in a "Cour d'Assise" the verdict come from a panel (jury) of ordinary peoples assisted by a judge.
Their verdict must be argumented (new european law - Strasburg court)
Also the penalties are completely differents (agravated penalties possible in a Cour d'Assise" to the death penalty .. changed in life time in jail)
The "Juge d'Instruction" play in this game !
AFAIK
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by distinguishing a "tribunal correctionnel" from a "cour d'assise"
If it's premeditation (intention to kill ) this will be a "Cour d'Assise"
It's also a big difference .. as in "Tribunal Correctionnel" the verdict come from the judges .. and in a "Cour d'Assise" the verdict come from a panel (jury) of ordinary peoples assisted by a judge.
Their verdict must be argumented (new european law - Strasburg court)
Also the penalties are completely differents (agravated penalties possible in a Cour d'Assise" to the death penalty .. changed in life time in jail)
The "Juge d'Instruction" play in this game !
AFAIK
Last edited by jcjeant; 20th Dec 2010 at 13:25.
Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL,
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by distinguishing a "tribunal correctionnel" from a "cour d'assise".
First of all I understand why all French readers of this forum are quite incensed, and that shock comes from one very meaningful difference between legal concepts between France and - apparently - most of Anglo-saxon countries : one cannot translate *crimes* into French as it is only reserved for very serious felonies especially murder or high treason
The Continental engineer, and the airline, were tried for a *delit*, roughly translated as *law infringement* or at the most *misdemeanour*.
As already said, the French system works on an accepted responsibility for individuals as far as their knowledge of the law and the penal risks they incur if they breach it.
Without that collective agreement on a citizen's responsibility, there is no French law... Generally, at the higher courts, the lawyers' job will be to find ways of mitigating/reducing that responsibility in order to lessen the verdict.
That's the reasoning behind the sentence : Mr Taylor was a licensed *engineer* ( another bad translation from the French is *mechanic* for *mecanicien* ), with qualification papers to prove his professionalism and as an employee of Continental, he must have been au fait of the airline maintenance procedures and standards. He failed to comply to either of these responsibilities...and pays the consequences, i.e not a lot as the consequences being a small fine and a suspended jail sentence.
The same fine would have been slapped on any engineer caught doing the same shortcuts in his works by an official audit, regardless of the possible consequences.
Apparently, this tribunal correctionnel was able to hand down criminal sentences as well as apportion responsibility
On the other hand, the usefulness of that court is to aportion responsibilities - and blame, whether we like it or not - as to the likely compensation claims from the victims' entourage.
After this verdict - provided it is upheld in the appellate court - the claimants can only turn for compensation, to the parties that have been judged responsible for the accident... and no one else.
I think that discussion here is concerned mostly with a distinction between criminal act, whereby one is set some kind of punitive sentence for committing the act (often fine or prison), and civil liability, which is concerned mostly with financial compensation to victims for the consequences of an act.
Remember living in the glass house and the stone ?
Last edited by Lemurian; 20th Dec 2010 at 13:23. Reason: spelling again !
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL
The fact that it may be part of the law in most US states does not ipso facto make it necessarily correct.
It is no more than a statement of how a particluar jurisdictions deals with this kind of issue.
I had two intents in mind.
One was to try to give a little insight into non US procedures (i.e. French in this instance) for those not familiar with them, and
second: to draw the distinction between a "Cour d'Assise" verdict which involves crimes, and a correctionnel verdict which involves "Délits".
The Continental mechanic was found to have committed a "délit", not a "crime".
The charge was "involontary homicide" (I have written on this before, but it may be worth repeating).
Now, what does that mean? It does not mean that he thought "I know what I will do, I will go completely outside the technical manuals, and pop a piece of totally unsuitable metal on an engine, that way Concorde will crash". Of course not.
It does mean that a correlation was found between his work and the final outcome, and that his work was identified as being well outside of what the protocols in place required.
He intended no harm, we can all suppose, but carried out a repair job incorrectly.
He was judged responsible for that by the court in Pontoise, and was given the sentence which had been demanded by the Procureur (Public Prosecutor if you wish), which was a suspended prison sentence. Note carefully that French justice is not vindictive, chauvinistic, anti American, or whatever.
A suspended prison sentence on an American national means what in concrete terms? He would be barred from standing for election as Mayor of a French town. He would anyway, unless he was French.
And that is about as far as it goes.
One person was indeed handed a punitive sentence, in other words was judged guilty of a criminal offence.
More than one, actually. A French national furthermore. And was judged to have committed a "délit" also.
Part of my efforts in explaining the distiction between correctionnel and assise was precisely to try to assist comprehension, because you appear a little unclear:
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by distinguishing a "tribunal correctionnel" from a "cour d'assise".
When I read remarks along the lines of "kangaroo court" or "French law is an oxymoron" I make reasonable efforts to explain the process.
For those who believe that airline safety is enhanced by a "no blame culture", I choose not to be part of that wider debate, because it goes beyond my skill or competence.
I can see a clear case that if a pilot is aware that he inadvertently endangers his aircraft by some kind of action which the aircraft's systems permitted, and he in the aftermath "confesses", there may be a slight mod necessary to prevent that from happening again, and I would prefer to sit a few rows back from that kind of pilot, than from the one who believes he is faultless.
I am not qualified flying crew, but I do know a little about that of which I speak.
Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
To suggest a company is responsible for the actions of an individual who knowingly and irresponsibly ignored approved procedures is nonsense.
Far from being nonsense, it is, as MountainBear pointed out, part of the law in most or all US states. A company is liable for the actions of any of its employees acting generally within the remit of their employment. Indeed, if you search for "duty of care" in US law documents on-line, these are the majority of instances you will find.
To suggest a company is responsible for the actions of an individual who knowingly and irresponsibly ignored approved procedures is nonsense.
Far from being nonsense, it is, as MountainBear pointed out, part of the law in most or all US states. A company is liable for the actions of any of its employees acting generally within the remit of their employment. Indeed, if you search for "duty of care" in US law documents on-line, these are the majority of instances you will find.
It is no more than a statement of how a particluar jurisdictions deals with this kind of issue.
wings folded,
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by distinguishing a "tribunal correctionnel" from a "cour d'assise". Apparently, this tribunal correctionnel was able to hand down criminal sentences as well as apportion responsibility, and I think that discussion here is concerned mostly with a distinction between criminal act, whereby one is set some kind of punitive sentence for committing the act (often fine or prison), and civil liability, which is concerned mostly with financial compensation to victims for the consequences of an act. The distinction is clear and valid. One person was indeed handed a punitive sentence, in other words was judged guilty of a criminal offence. And it is the appropriateness of that in the context of larger concerns about improving aviation safety with which much of the discussion is concerned.
PBL
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by distinguishing a "tribunal correctionnel" from a "cour d'assise". Apparently, this tribunal correctionnel was able to hand down criminal sentences as well as apportion responsibility, and I think that discussion here is concerned mostly with a distinction between criminal act, whereby one is set some kind of punitive sentence for committing the act (often fine or prison), and civil liability, which is concerned mostly with financial compensation to victims for the consequences of an act. The distinction is clear and valid. One person was indeed handed a punitive sentence, in other words was judged guilty of a criminal offence. And it is the appropriateness of that in the context of larger concerns about improving aviation safety with which much of the discussion is concerned.
PBL
One was to try to give a little insight into non US procedures (i.e. French in this instance) for those not familiar with them, and
second: to draw the distinction between a "Cour d'Assise" verdict which involves crimes, and a correctionnel verdict which involves "Délits".
The Continental mechanic was found to have committed a "délit", not a "crime".
The charge was "involontary homicide" (I have written on this before, but it may be worth repeating).
Now, what does that mean? It does not mean that he thought "I know what I will do, I will go completely outside the technical manuals, and pop a piece of totally unsuitable metal on an engine, that way Concorde will crash". Of course not.
It does mean that a correlation was found between his work and the final outcome, and that his work was identified as being well outside of what the protocols in place required.
He intended no harm, we can all suppose, but carried out a repair job incorrectly.
He was judged responsible for that by the court in Pontoise, and was given the sentence which had been demanded by the Procureur (Public Prosecutor if you wish), which was a suspended prison sentence. Note carefully that French justice is not vindictive, chauvinistic, anti American, or whatever.
A suspended prison sentence on an American national means what in concrete terms? He would be barred from standing for election as Mayor of a French town. He would anyway, unless he was French.
And that is about as far as it goes.
One person was indeed handed a punitive sentence, in other words was judged guilty of a criminal offence.
DGAC was found not guilty and assigned zero part of the responsibility by the court (that itself seems to me a mixing-up of criminal- with civil-law concepts; it seems French trials of this nature serve both purposes). Whether that is just is something which we could profitably discuss in this thread.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make by distinguishing a "tribunal correctionnel" from a "cour d'assise".
For those who believe that airline safety is enhanced by a "no blame culture", I choose not to be part of that wider debate, because it goes beyond my skill or competence.
I can see a clear case that if a pilot is aware that he inadvertently endangers his aircraft by some kind of action which the aircraft's systems permitted, and he in the aftermath "confesses", there may be a slight mod necessary to prevent that from happening again, and I would prefer to sit a few rows back from that kind of pilot, than from the one who believes he is faultless.
I am not qualified flying crew, but I do know a little about that of which I speak.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dortmund
Age: 54
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBL,
I think you misunderstood the BEA report regarding the significance of titanium vs. stainless steel. What I conclude from section 1.16.5 ("Tyre destruction mechanism", p. 97 in the English PDF version): For the low speed cutting tests they used one strip made of titanium, and some others made of "a stainless steel whose material strength characteristics are similar to titanium". For the high speed tests they used titanium only. But there is no hint that the low speed tests indicated a significant difference between the two materials. Yes, one strip was flattened instead of cutting into the tyre, but this was due to its positioning on the runway, and it happened to be the one made of titanium.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thank you both, Lemurian and wings folded, for explaining some of the concepts of French law. Amongst other things, we do work for a French lawyer (maybe the very same one referred to by David Learmount, cited in an earlier contribution to this thread) so I myself am not entirely as ignorant as I may sometimes seem (or so I hope!).
Maybe rather than use the word "crime", which seems at least in this discussion to be overloaded, you might be happier were I to use the word "offence"? The translation of english "offence" into French is simple: "crime ou delit". As far as I can tell, the US concept of misdemeanor does not square with "delit", but the system is similar in that it acknowledges two grades of punishable offences. The concept is not present in English law, as far as I know, but there is a distinction between three kinds of criminal offences, summary offences (tried without jury), indictable offences (for which a jury is required and which you might want to call "crimes") and those in between (which may be dealt with under one or the other process). I think all systems acknowledge distinctions between categories of offence.
Lemurian, Mr. Taylor is a mechanic, not an engineer. An engineer in the US is someone who has passed the relevant professional examinations and is entitled to write the initials "P.E." after hisher name. Mr. Taylor is not such, neither is anyone working on the shop floor of a aeroengine maintenance facility. They are all mechanics. If such a person were to be a P.E., there should be no doubt at all, despite what MountainBear and countless legal judgements about US corporate responsibility on the Internet say, that this person is personally, in his capacity as P.E., responsible for the quality of the repair and the consequences of it. That is what being professionally accredited means in the US, as elsewhere.
wings folded, thank you for taking the time to explain carefully, in more detail, what these French legal concepts entail. I do believe I know most of what you say - I don't think I am completely "unclear" on the concepts - but yours is a valuable contribution to the debate for those who are both unaccustomed to French law and willing to learn. (There are also some contributors who abuse PPRuNe's hospitality, as you remark, but I don't think we really need concern ourselves with them, do you?)
Nevertheless, I would encourage you to do so, please, because I and many others regard the conflicts between "no-blame culture" and just-recompense to be one of the pressing issues in aviation safety nowadays. The more people who think about the issues, the more chance we have of reaching a general resolution! And no one, just no one, is expert in all sides of the debate.
I am professionally a safety-critical systems expert, concentrating mainly but not exclusively (as you see) on computer-based systems. I have eminent colleagues with world-wide reputations who refuse to engage with the debate on the basis that they are "engineers" with interests in "safety" and compensation is a matter of "law". And "no blame culture" is apparently appropriate for engineers, and thereby safety, and nothing else. They apparently do not care to think about the hundreds of families who lost loved ones, and their breadwinners, in an accident and who, justly, according to thousands of years of established law with firm underpinnings in fairness and social welfare, ask for compensation and ask for someone to adjudicate their compensation. My engineering colleagues must go after the "take him for all he's got" extremists, and my legal colleagues must ask the engineers to have a heart for the families of those lost. That is the only way that I can see to go forward.
A fine debate, gentlemen and ladies! Thank you for helping to raise the standard!
PBL
Maybe rather than use the word "crime", which seems at least in this discussion to be overloaded, you might be happier were I to use the word "offence"? The translation of english "offence" into French is simple: "crime ou delit". As far as I can tell, the US concept of misdemeanor does not square with "delit", but the system is similar in that it acknowledges two grades of punishable offences. The concept is not present in English law, as far as I know, but there is a distinction between three kinds of criminal offences, summary offences (tried without jury), indictable offences (for which a jury is required and which you might want to call "crimes") and those in between (which may be dealt with under one or the other process). I think all systems acknowledge distinctions between categories of offence.
Lemurian, Mr. Taylor is a mechanic, not an engineer. An engineer in the US is someone who has passed the relevant professional examinations and is entitled to write the initials "P.E." after hisher name. Mr. Taylor is not such, neither is anyone working on the shop floor of a aeroengine maintenance facility. They are all mechanics. If such a person were to be a P.E., there should be no doubt at all, despite what MountainBear and countless legal judgements about US corporate responsibility on the Internet say, that this person is personally, in his capacity as P.E., responsible for the quality of the repair and the consequences of it. That is what being professionally accredited means in the US, as elsewhere.
wings folded, thank you for taking the time to explain carefully, in more detail, what these French legal concepts entail. I do believe I know most of what you say - I don't think I am completely "unclear" on the concepts - but yours is a valuable contribution to the debate for those who are both unaccustomed to French law and willing to learn. (There are also some contributors who abuse PPRuNe's hospitality, as you remark, but I don't think we really need concern ourselves with them, do you?)
Originally Posted by wings folded
For those who believe that airline safety is enhanced by a "no blame culture", I choose not to be part of that wider debate, because it goes beyond my skill or competence.
I am professionally a safety-critical systems expert, concentrating mainly but not exclusively (as you see) on computer-based systems. I have eminent colleagues with world-wide reputations who refuse to engage with the debate on the basis that they are "engineers" with interests in "safety" and compensation is a matter of "law". And "no blame culture" is apparently appropriate for engineers, and thereby safety, and nothing else. They apparently do not care to think about the hundreds of families who lost loved ones, and their breadwinners, in an accident and who, justly, according to thousands of years of established law with firm underpinnings in fairness and social welfare, ask for compensation and ask for someone to adjudicate their compensation. My engineering colleagues must go after the "take him for all he's got" extremists, and my legal colleagues must ask the engineers to have a heart for the families of those lost. That is the only way that I can see to go forward.
A fine debate, gentlemen and ladies! Thank you for helping to raise the standard!
PBL
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sunny England
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been following this thread with great interest from the start.The very sad fact is that a great many innocent people lost their lives on this ill fated flight.Now we may argue about the missing spacer,the downwind take off,overweight,too much fuel,et al but the cause of the tyre failure and to quote another source was:
"The wear strip fell from the DC-10 onto the runway. Why? The holes on the strip were drilled close together and not in proper alignment. This particular strip was a make-shift repair strip. As the holes wore through, the mechanic drilled new holes into it. Not only were the holes too close together but they were drilled too large of a diameter. Evidence suggests that rivets pulled through the holes, causing the wear strip to fall from the DC-10."
If such a part requires replacement on an aircraft,it is replaced in accordance with the manufacturers aircraft maintenance manual/the manufacturers structural repair manual/parts selected from the manufacturers illustrated parts catalogues.Should a repair be required out of this scope i.e.materials as original equipment manufacturer or beyond normal limits,the repair must be sanctioned by the original manufacturer and followed to the letter.This guy fell down on all counts.We are talking about peoples lives here.
"The wear strip fell from the DC-10 onto the runway. Why? The holes on the strip were drilled close together and not in proper alignment. This particular strip was a make-shift repair strip. As the holes wore through, the mechanic drilled new holes into it. Not only were the holes too close together but they were drilled too large of a diameter. Evidence suggests that rivets pulled through the holes, causing the wear strip to fall from the DC-10."
If such a part requires replacement on an aircraft,it is replaced in accordance with the manufacturers aircraft maintenance manual/the manufacturers structural repair manual/parts selected from the manufacturers illustrated parts catalogues.Should a repair be required out of this scope i.e.materials as original equipment manufacturer or beyond normal limits,the repair must be sanctioned by the original manufacturer and followed to the letter.This guy fell down on all counts.We are talking about peoples lives here.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not intend my comment to be rude and I am sorry you felt that it was :-(
The problem with this example is two-fold.
First, the case at hand with the Concorde is most definitely not this case. Playing with a loaded gun is a far cry from playing with a scrap of metal on an airplane.
Second, your example would fall under the second exemption that I noted, which is actions which are otherwise innately criminal. In the USA unlawful killing has many forms and in this case he would most likely be charged with manslaughter, which is a criminal change.
I think you'll find that in many jurisdictions a general duty of care also extends to individuals. If A is employed by a security firm and carries a firearm when on the job, and he decides to show it off to a group of schoolkids taunting him, and he shoots one or two of them, then his employer may well have failed in its duty of care, but are you really suggesting that he walks off scot-free on the basis that he was in employment at the time of the incident? I doubt very much that he could. In many or most states, he would likely be prosecuted, and prosecutors would likely try to establish negligence (assuming no one believes the shooting was deliberate). Negligence is intimately bound with the concept of duty of care, for negligence is breach of that duty.
First, the case at hand with the Concorde is most definitely not this case. Playing with a loaded gun is a far cry from playing with a scrap of metal on an airplane.
Second, your example would fall under the second exemption that I noted, which is actions which are otherwise innately criminal. In the USA unlawful killing has many forms and in this case he would most likely be charged with manslaughter, which is a criminal change.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does mean that a correlation was found between his work and the final outcome,
This is why PBL's example with a gun is not useful. Playing with a loaded gun it is foreseeable that someone could get hurt. I don't believe that is true with a mechanic bungling a repair on an airplane.
It's also important to note that under American law what is foreseeable is not what is foreseeable to the expert or even to another mechanic or what his license says. The standard is what is foreseeable to the "average man".
Applying that standard, what is foreseeable to the average man, I find it a simple fantasy that this mechanic could foresee that this incorrect repair was going to blow up the Concorde. I don't believe it.
I am not an expert on French law and I don't pretend to be. But I do understand American law. And in my opinion if this ruling is allowed to stand, the fact that it is legally correct under French law is so much the worse for France.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wings folded, thank you for taking the time to explain carefully, in more detail, what these French legal concepts entail. I do believe I know most of what you say - I don't think I am completely "unclear" on the concepts - but yours is a valuable contribution to the debate for those who are both unaccustomed to French law and willing to learn. (There are also some contributors who abuse PPRuNe's hospitality, as you remark, but I don't think we really need concern ourselves with them, do you?)
Originally Posted by wings folded
For those who believe that airline safety is enhanced by a "no blame culture", I choose not to be part of that wider debate, because it goes beyond my skill or competence.
Nevertheless, I would encourage you to do so, please, because I and many others regard the conflicts between "no-blame culture" and just-recompense to be one of the pressing issues in aviation safety nowadays. The more people who think about the issues, the more chance we have of reaching a general resolution! And no one, just no one, is expert in all sides of the debate.
For those who believe that airline safety is enhanced by a "no blame culture", I choose not to be part of that wider debate, because it goes beyond my skill or competence.
Nevertheless, I would encourage you to do so, please, because I and many others regard the conflicts between "no-blame culture" and just-recompense to be one of the pressing issues in aviation safety nowadays. The more people who think about the issues, the more chance we have of reaching a general resolution! And no one, just no one, is expert in all sides of the debate.
When I flew, I tried always to be safe. I cannot say that I always achieved the perfection I hoped for. I no longer fly, so anyone could say that I am disqualified from holding a point of view. Hence my reticence before those who still fly.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MountainBear,
I agree with you that there is no way in which Mr. Taylor, or anyone else for that matter, could foresee what was about to happen.
Still, are you completely sure that he would not be strictly liable were he to be a P.E.?
PBL
Originally Posted by MountainBear
It's also important to note that under American law what is foreseeable is not what is foreseeable to the expert or even to another mechanic or what his license says. The standard is what is foreseeable to the "average man".
Applying that standard, what is foreseeable to the average man, I find it a simple fantasy that this mechanic could foresee that this incorrect repair was going to blow up the Concorde.
Applying that standard, what is foreseeable to the average man, I find it a simple fantasy that this mechanic could foresee that this incorrect repair was going to blow up the Concorde.
Still, are you completely sure that he would not be strictly liable were he to be a P.E.?
PBL
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: egsh
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but under American law the standard would be whether or not that consequences was foreseeable. This is what I mentioned in my very first comment on the topic.
It's also important to note that under American law what is foreseeable is not what is foreseeable to the expert or even to another mechanic or what his license says. The standard is what is foreseeable to the "average man".
I am not an expert on French law and I don't pretend to be.
But I do understand American law. And in my opinion if this ruling is allowed to stand, the fact that it is legally correct under French law is so much the worse for France.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zombie arguments - knock 'em down and they stand right up again
Mountain Bear
The accident happened in France. French law is applicable. Several posters have gone to great lengths to explain this in detail. If the accident had happened on Mars, Martian law would be applicable.
US law is not applicable to this accident, and opinions based on US law are not helpful.
Nonsense. Bungling a repair on an aeroplane causes that aeroplane to be released to service with a known fault that is logged as repaired - i.e. in a state that differs from its documented state. There are myriad unknown possibilities consequent upon a bungled repair. That is why repairs must not be bungled in the first place.
Then training, licensing, experience and standards count for nothing? Forgive me for using the UK term "cobblers". The repairer was not an average man - he was a licensed mechanic. Part of the training involved in gaining that license involves being instructed that bungled repairs are likely to have unexpected consequences.
If US law assumes that the standards of the "average man" are to be applied to a trained specialist, in his specialist field, then we have a prime example of the law as an ass.
There is no need to. It is only necessary to believe that the mechanic knew that he had bungled the repair, and that in so doing he had invited the possibility of unexpected consequences.
One for example might have been a thrust reverser malfunction caused by the missing wear strip, just at the point at which the DC10 required maximum reverse performance in order to avoid careering off the end of a runway into a ravine. Bangalore, say.
Edit: that should be Mangalore, obviously. And, not being a licensed mechanic, I have no idea whether the bungled repair might have caused a reverser malfunction. But the wear strip was specified for a reason, and there must be consequences arising from its absence. I think I make my point.
That the dropped strip would knock down Concorde was not directly foreseeable is irrelevant. That the repair was not performed according to SOPs and was therefore liklely to have an unknown performance was directly foreseeable.
I'm not an aviation professional. I'm a freelance. I am directly responsible for everything I do. I can't run off to mummy employer to take the rap if I foul up.
I like it that way. It is bracing, and concentrates the mind. Try it sometime.
Yes, but under American law the standard would be whether or not that consequences was foreseeable. This is what I mentioned in my very first comment on the topic.
US law is not applicable to this accident, and opinions based on US law are not helpful.
This is why PBL's example with a gun is not useful. Playing with a loaded gun it is foreseeable that someone could get hurt. I don't believe that is true with a mechanic bungling a repair on an airplane.
It's also important to note that under American law what is foreseeable is not what is foreseeable to the expert or even to another mechanic or what his license says. The standard is what is foreseeable to the "average man".
If US law assumes that the standards of the "average man" are to be applied to a trained specialist, in his specialist field, then we have a prime example of the law as an ass.
Applying that standard, what is foreseeable to the average man, I find it a simple fantasy that this mechanic could foresee that this incorrect repair was going to blow up the Concorde. I don't believe it.
One for example might have been a thrust reverser malfunction caused by the missing wear strip, just at the point at which the DC10 required maximum reverse performance in order to avoid careering off the end of a runway into a ravine. Bangalore, say.
Edit: that should be Mangalore, obviously. And, not being a licensed mechanic, I have no idea whether the bungled repair might have caused a reverser malfunction. But the wear strip was specified for a reason, and there must be consequences arising from its absence. I think I make my point.
That the dropped strip would knock down Concorde was not directly foreseeable is irrelevant. That the repair was not performed according to SOPs and was therefore liklely to have an unknown performance was directly foreseeable.
I'm not an aviation professional. I'm a freelance. I am directly responsible for everything I do. I can't run off to mummy employer to take the rap if I foul up.
I like it that way. It is bracing, and concentrates the mind. Try it sometime.
Last edited by Iron Duck; 20th Dec 2010 at 20:50.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the relevance of American law?
I won't respond to your posts any further.