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 !

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.

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

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...

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

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"?

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 ...

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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).

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.

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. :ok:

@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.

@Winnerhofer
Thank you ...

To non french speaking readers
 

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 ;) !

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... :O

Roulis, my friend, I trust absolutely *no* newspapers in the world at all! :ok:

@Winnerhofer:

Your link is to the front page of the blog rather than the specific post. I think this is what you're after:
AF 447 : avant le non-lieu : Les dossiers noirs du transport aérien

M. Marnet-Cornus does not specify where this information is coming from as far as I can see. And while I agree with his point that the role played by the apparent slowness in replacing the AA pitot tubes should not be ignored, I can also see why making a strong case against Airbus would be difficult in that regard. Because while the manner of their mandate to replace the pitot tubes left the specifics regarding timing up to the airlines concerned, the fact remains that they did mandate the change and provided materials to the airlines which constituted a workaround for the problem in the interim.

However, this still potentially leaves AF open to answer questions, as it was their timeline for applying the Service Bulletin that meant that particular aircraft did not have the fix applied when it encountered the conditions which blocked the pitot tubes and ultimately crashed.

Maybe he do as journalists:
Source protection

"they did mandate the change"
 

Well, that's not what is written in the final report pages 142-143.
EASA (not Airbus, not DGAC) has decided in March 2009 that:It means that the status of the SB stayed at the "recommended" level.
That may be a good reason for the Investigative Magistrate not to pursue Airbus.

Right, but manufacturers can themselves enforce compliance without needing to involve authorities by including the SB in revised maintenance manuals or instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA). Not sure what the precise status was in this case, but it's fairly clear that Airbus wanted the work done.

That's why the SB was "recommended".
That was the farthest the manufacturer could have gone in this situation.
Next level is "mandatory" but then the SB is covered by an AD and it's clearly outside the manufacturer's scope.

Are experts and lawyers managing a trial decision like "Everyone is culprit, so nobody is culprit" (comment of Albert Ducrocq after the Ariane 501 launch crash report) ?

Not really, I think it's just that any lawyer (for plaintiff, prosecution or defence) will usually only want to argue the strongest possible case - and in this event the case against Airbus isn't as strong as the case against the airline and regulator.

Not sure of that scenario. Other possibilities exist.
Wait and see.

@Winnerhofer:

Any chance of a summary in English for those of us who are, lamentably, not Francophone? :ok:

On point 6, the reporter must be unaware that the BEA are compelled to be "neutral" by their own remit. Like other investigative agencies, they can recommend remedies but cannot enforce. And as with other "civil service" agencies like the UK AAIB (but unlike the US NTSB), their remit forbids them from apportioning specific responsibility.

Hull insurance premiums
 

Maybe they should , but sure the increase is offset by the volume discount, so probably they pay less than smaller and "safer" operators....:(

Catastrophe Rio-Paris: fin de l'enquête

The judges have strongly suggested that Air France and Airbus,will be indicted for manslaughter, it is a certainty for us," he told reporters Alain Jakubowicz, a lawyer for the Mutual Aid Association and solidarity AF447

Seeing as a significant chunk of the issues raised by the accident in terms of aviation safety are already being addressed (e.g. stall recovery training), I doubt any delay in the legal process will make a great deal of difference.

I'd also be very wary of making assumptions based on how the legal representatives of the various parties are briefing the media - because they're always going to be somewhat biased in favour of the preferred outcome for those they are representing.

The trial will be highlighting the issues of security the time of the accident .. and not those present and the trial will try to determine the responsibilities of each and others on the lack of security .. if any
That's the duty of the trial
Aviation safety is the job of the regulators

Trial public release of info
 

Is evidence in the trial made available to the public or is it all confidentail?
For example if the CVR is admitted as evidence would they release the recording to the public or if they went into the background of the 3 pilots then it would be made public.

Nothing confidential in this kind of trial .. until the judge estimate that something must be examined behind closed doors (most unlikely) at the request of any partie
CVR (transcript) can be requested and produced in the trial
Actual CVR recording (voice) will be not requested unless it's a VERY good reason (full argumented) by the judge ( one case already in a trial in Canada concerning ATC recording if my memory don't fail :) )

Again, M. Marnet-Cornus is not exactly an unbiased source. I'm still bewildered as to how he expects the BEA to have forced a move from the DGAC when it is impossible for them to do so (their remit only allows them to make recommendations - they cannot force changes).

"France is an old country of Law". She remained cautious to accept
1. The offense of endangering the lives of others
2. Criminal liability of legal persons
3. Crimes committed by the government, Justice, regulators or Elected
4. Crimes recognized by international law
5. Reparation at level of actual damage.
6. Technical negligence to do the best possible at the moment to avoid fatal "errors" and massive deaths, injuries, losses

Consequently, even these points entering the codes in the last decades, the French Judges fear for their careers if they apply the sanctions provided by Law.

At the time of the communication and win-win principles, combinazione with the powerful outweighs the notions of good and evil, to the detriment of victims.

The appeal of Ste Odile showed that DGAC and military air controller lawyers have effectively relied more administrative pathes. It seems to me that the current choice anticipate such a defense, rather than the funds and aviation safety.

Is the lawyer Daniel Soulez-Larivière?