jcjeant

Since this discussion seems to be moving in all directions and more about .. we can add .. some of which appear to be an unimportant detail ... but ..
In its final report, the BEA said he has told Airbus to make a simulation to reproduce the flight controls during the accident to compare with the FDR data
This is to forget something important from the standpoint justice
Airbus is one of the accused in the trial and was already when the simulation was requested
This is called "be judge and jury" and it is not allowed under French law
This simulation should have been made ​​by an independent body
To follow at the trial !

DozyWannabe

But the report is not part of the judicial process, merely a finding of fact. Given that EADS has the best tools for providing the simulation requested, it's simply common sense to ask them to produce the simulation, and it's a very simple matter to compare the control inputs of the simulation to ensure that they match the actual DFDR data.

Non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

jcjeant

For me .. the same ..as I'm not concerned ..
I think .. it will be a issue ... for those concerned
It's a big gap between common sens and laws
To verify in some years

DozyWannabe

OK, let's get this straight. The BEA report is not a legal document, and the accident investigation is completely outside of the legal process. EADS (Airbus) are in possession of the simulator which can fulfil the request - no other entity has tools which are anything like as accurate. The simulation would be run with BEA people present in order to verify the accuracy of the inputs to the simulation, as well as to study the simulated responses. There is nothing untoward about this, and I'm fairly certain this process is pretty much identical in the US with Boeing. The manufacturers have to be the ones to run the simulation because they are the only entities in possession of simulation tools with the required accuracy.

If the SNPL legal team want to argue the point, then they'll have to take it up during the court case(s) when the BEA report is entered into evidence - but they'd have to have a very strong case of presumed malfeasance first. Of course, they could also send their own guys up to the EADS labs to verify the simulation for themselves...

roulishollandais

ICAO, Annex 13, BEA reports are not "legal" documents ???? What is legality for you ? Only A docs ????

DozyWannabe

I mean that the report is not part of the criminal justice process in and of itself (though the report will be entered into evidence in any court cases related to the accident).

And what are "A docs"?

jcjeant

The BEA report is a legal document
Without worrying about international law and taking into account only the French laws we can say that:
The French state has requested (through the Minister of Transport) to the BEA to conduct the accident investigation
BEA is an agency of the Ministry of Transport
This report will be produced at trial (how could it be otherwise, since this report accurately describes the accident and provide related documents)
This is a common thing (see last trial dated .. the Concorde)
This process is also an opportunity to examine whether the BEA has followed the law to conduct its investigation .. because the state is obliged to respect the laws
As I write before ... wait some years for the trial ...

roulishollandais

A Judge is absolutely independant. He is not allowed to interfer in the investigations, both of BEA and experts and counter-experts. The BEA is a public document according the Annex 13. Experts and counter-experts are requested by some parts or Justice (Prosecutor) but decided by Justice. The Court uses ALL these informations.

roulishollandais

ICAO never asked to victims, judges, aso to be idiot and unable to read or -worse- to think that Agencies lie and create fantasy with debris, logic and evidence. And if they do that they are guilty. We are speaking of civil aviation and general aviation.

The law is not math or pure logic applying silogisms. Complexity of real life is concerned. Something that most people forget with law is the absolute necessity of GOOD FAITH. That is true in national and international law.

And they are always limits in every thing. The limit in ICAO rules are there to protect souverainty of States, and protection of property, not to hide the facts and proofs.

How do you imagine the two trials in Colmar (Habsheim and Sainte-Odile) could exist applying strictly the sentence you were quoting out of context ? The first day of the trial the Army of Lawyers should have requested to stop the trial. But they did not that.
In military life where state safety is concerned, mostly the choice of Army is not to protect their failures not to deny reports.

We may have regrets but time of secrets is gone. (Secrets still exist during a short time, sometimes very short time, not more).Judge read the BEA reports and are always allowed to ask the answered question during the trial and to experts who read the BEA report, etc.

jcjeant

Concorde trial (minutes)
Sorry it's in french .. of course
mars « 2010 « Procès du crash du CONCORDE
BEA report is examined
BEA chairman is interrogated about some details of the BEA report

roulishollandais

Thank you jcjeant. Good example of what is called "Droit positif" (don't know the English word)

DozyWannabe

But that doesn't stop the reports from being entered into evidence *as* an independent assessment. Which is fair and right.

Personally I don't think criminal courts have any place in this type of proceeding (unless something is obviously untoward), but what do I know?

roulishollandais

The Court knows. So a Trial is the best thing to do if people died or/and the plane is destroyed or disappeared and/or damage on ground to examine if criminal negligence or fault was the cause of these facts.

DozyWannabe

To be perfectly honest, it seems that the only thing a significant number of the French court cases have done is allow the SNPL to make slanderous accusations in the press against Airbus and the BEA. Generally, I think bringing the legal system into it without clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing seems to make things worse rather than better - though there are exceptions (the Royal Commission into the crash of TE901 into Mt. Erebus being a good example).

Turbine D

Dozy,

I think you have to accept the fact "Droit positif" or Substantive law is the major legal method used throughout the world, the exception being, former English colonies where Common Law (Procedural law) is used. Even in the United States, it is a mixed bag in some States (Louisiana and other Southwestern States) that were not so influenced by the English colonization, some Common Law and some Substantive law are used to this day in those States. In either law, the objective is the same, only the methodology to reach the objective differs, the objective being justice. If you look at Continental Europe, Substantive law rules, although regulations vary from one country to the next.

I believe in France, Substantive law is used to determine whether a crime or tort (negligence for example) has been committed and to define what charges may apply and decide whether the evidence supports the charges. In other words, specific facts need to be proven true in order to convict someone or an organization of a crime or a tort. In some ways, it is like what a grand jury is charged to determine in the United States, except in France a judge is selected to make the determination.

So it would seem reasonable that all evidence gathered either by the French Court or by independent sources (BEA and the BEA report) would be examined and those persons or organizations connected to the evidence interviewed to clarify the written word.

At this point in time, I am not sure it has been decided what charges apply in the AF447 legal proceedings. I do know that a United States Court determined that the families of two US citizens who perished in the accident could not sue in the US Court system for damages, instead the Court decided the French legal system was perfectly adequate to make this determination on their behalf.

DozyWannabe

Absolutely TD, and I'm in complete agreement with you. I just think that based on historical events, the point at which accident investigation and the legal system intersects must be navigated extremely carefully, is all.

DozyWannabe

@roulis:

The press pretty much anywhere write what they want - the only issue is that their agenda is to maximise sales of their paper/ads on their TV channel/hits on their site and will print whatever sounds the most "controversial" in order to do so. This tends to mean that accidents are frequently misunderstood in the public mind long after the dust has settled.

jcjeant

@Winnerhofer
Thank you ...

roulishollandais

We see in that long document in French from the French Justice Ministery that coordination, cooperation, sharing all informations is perfect and rapid between BEA, Justice and experts. So the ICAO ad is clearly not conform to reality, or perhaps we misunderstand the world "used" in that sentence !

roulishollandais

You are probably the only who trusts in the french newspapers. People like to imagine the world to increase their fears. Perhaps they are a little suicidal too today : often when we had to delay one or two minutes the take-off due to big storm reaching the runway before us, the cabin crew went to inform us that some paxes where angry to be late, despite information was given on the Public-adress...