European Commission: New rules for air accident investigation
Thread Starter
European Commission: New rules for air accident investigation
Fresh news: The European Commission is proposing new EU-wide rules on air accident investigation to be implemented.
The whole story here:
eGov monitor - A Policy Dialogue Platform | Promoting Better Governance
The centrepiece of this proposal is the establishment of a European Network of Civil Aviation Safety Investigation Authorities. It will coordinate and strengthen cooperation between the Member States, the Commission and EASA, and implement a number of central functions, such as coordinating training activities or sharing investigation resources available in the EU.
eGov monitor - A Policy Dialogue Platform | Promoting Better Governance
Two obvious features of what's described there:
(1) It's not under EASA control, and
(2) It's about networking national investigating authorities and giving them a working framework, rather than centralising them.
Both those points seem to be thoroughly sensible, and I hope it'll work well.
G
(1) It's not under EASA control, and
(2) It's about networking national investigating authorities and giving them a working framework, rather than centralising them.
Both those points seem to be thoroughly sensible, and I hope it'll work well.
G
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will it prevent the proliferation of lawyers (who have a view to blame and litigation) getting ahead of and hindering the work of the accident investigators (who do not apportion blame, just seek to prevent recurrence)?
I can't say that I saw anything in there which either is likely to encourage or discourage that.
Personally, I think that the best way to dissuade that is through better rules mandating the circumstances and rates of insurance pay-outs, otherwise the courts will remain the main mechanism for deciding that, causing a lot of money to go into the legal process which more properly should go to people who have suffered accident losses.
G
Personally, I think that the best way to dissuade that is through better rules mandating the circumstances and rates of insurance pay-outs, otherwise the courts will remain the main mechanism for deciding that, causing a lot of money to go into the legal process which more properly should go to people who have suffered accident losses.
G
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Murdoch University, WA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not entirely correct!!
This is obviously a very general remark. You need to wait, hunt and gather sufficient evidence in a civil claim for damages before you can start the legal proceedings.
Where do one get his evidence in support of his claim for damages?
" You cannot get a chicken by smashing the egg. You have to wait until till the egg hatches".
Hawk mi kam
Where do one get his evidence in support of his claim for damages?
" You cannot get a chicken by smashing the egg. You have to wait until till the egg hatches".
Hawk mi kam
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East of Java
Age: 64
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centralising the functions must be a long term objective of the EASA, with the net- working as an interim step to consolidating the various working functions. Getting it to work will be a long shot.
Regarding the liability issues read the ICAO annex (13), as it specifically states the following:
Annex 13 To the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation
OBJECTIVE OF THE INVESTIGATION
3.1 The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents.
It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.
Litigation, insurance payouts, liability ect will have nothing to do with the accredited investigating authority. The courts will always decide the compensation, as it has nothing to do with factual reporting and final report submitted by an accident investigation authority - it's completely unrelated
Back to the point though, a centralised function has some benefits, so not to be dismissed out of hand
Regarding the liability issues read the ICAO annex (13), as it specifically states the following:
Annex 13 To the Convention on International Civil Aviation - Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation
OBJECTIVE OF THE INVESTIGATION
3.1 The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents.
It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.
Litigation, insurance payouts, liability ect will have nothing to do with the accredited investigating authority. The courts will always decide the compensation, as it has nothing to do with factual reporting and final report submitted by an accident investigation authority - it's completely unrelated
Back to the point though, a centralised function has some benefits, so not to be dismissed out of hand
“Centralising the functions must be a long term objective of the EASA”
Isn’t one of the problems for EASA that they (Europe) are not signatories to the ICAO convention? Thus as not being a ‘national authority’ do they have any responsibility for accident investigation under Annex 13.
Currently there is no consistent high standard of accident investigation across the European nations. Many are combing their efforts, although most probably could participate under the auspices of Annex 13 – interested parties any way.
Europe / EASA need a single investigation authority, but currently I don’t see how this will occur in practice. Even if there is a central body, there could be ‘regional centres’ as with NTSB, which for lesser events can result in variable investigative and reporting performance.
Isn’t one of the problems for EASA that they (Europe) are not signatories to the ICAO convention? Thus as not being a ‘national authority’ do they have any responsibility for accident investigation under Annex 13.
Currently there is no consistent high standard of accident investigation across the European nations. Many are combing their efforts, although most probably could participate under the auspices of Annex 13 – interested parties any way.
Europe / EASA need a single investigation authority, but currently I don’t see how this will occur in practice. Even if there is a central body, there could be ‘regional centres’ as with NTSB, which for lesser events can result in variable investigative and reporting performance.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East of Java
Age: 64
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points. The contracting States are responsible under the provisions of the annex, however, EASA is not required to be a signatory as the contracting states have jurisdiction, based on state of occurance, registry ect - read the annex, it's clear enough and open to enough interpretation
There is a push on to centralise the functions; it will end up being mirrored as a function as with several other EASA operations which are running in parallel, with enough residual inertia from the individual contracting states to prevent EASA getting the unified investigating agency it probably wants - either way, it's a mess waiting to happen. The AAIB, BEA ect are very competent, so it's hard to see how centralising the functions will improve the respective processes
There is a push on to centralise the functions; it will end up being mirrored as a function as with several other EASA operations which are running in parallel, with enough residual inertia from the individual contracting states to prevent EASA getting the unified investigating agency it probably wants - either way, it's a mess waiting to happen. The AAIB, BEA ect are very competent, so it's hard to see how centralising the functions will improve the respective processes
Last edited by flatfootsam; 12th Nov 2009 at 09:03.
