Aircraft Accidents and Reality

The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (IFALPA) wrote an article on April 13, 2015, in Global Travel Industry News about the Germanwings flight 4U9525 accident:
In the article the IFALPA reps voice concern with the French authorities’ non-compliance with the provisions of ICAO Annex 13, the International Standards for Accident Investigation. They are 100% correct; this investigation has been a sham in as far as the guidelines of ICAO Annex 13 have not been followed.
Chapter 3, subchapter 3.1 states: “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 ….” It further states in Appendix: Format of the Final Report (Doc 6920) that a Factual report must be written; that all information pertaining to the crew is factual. It makes no mention of reporting any crew member’s ALLEGED mental, physical or emotional health.
I have been mentioning in previous Blog entries on my website that the accident should have been turned over to Law Enforcement immediately when question of the cause went outside normal accident circumstances (allegedly intentional), especially as the unprofessional manner continued to become more and more destructive to the crew, the victims and ultimately to the victims’ surviving family and friends. Unfortunately we will find out the mistakes of the improper handling of this tragedy only when the fix can no longer help or will cause further mishap.

2 thoughts on “Aircraft Accidents and Reality”

    1. I’m assuming you mean as it relates to Germanwings9525. In that case I would say (2): investigate the crime. One interpretation of the word Accident is defined as 3 – any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause. If we are to take the allegations seriously – which we must if they are possible – these POSSIBLE events of suicide takes Germanwings9525 out of the realm of accident and designates it as an intentional manslaughter/homicide event; it should no longer be investigated under ICAO Annex 13 because it is not an accident – unless later proved otherwise. Let me offer this analogy: a passenger car veers into opposing traffic, killing a bus load of students; this would be considered an accident and could be reviewed by the Highway division of the NTSB. Now assume that it was discovered mid-investigation that the passenger car’s brake lines were unarguably and intentionally cut with a straight razor. Now the NTSB lacks the knowledge and legal means to further investigate, leaving it to the proper authorities to not only collect the evidence but to control the flow of information. By comparison, this did not happen with Germanwings9525; the release of critical information can no longer be properly investigated; it would be comparable to an amateur walking through an accident scene and moving vital pieces of evidence. The outcome will always be in question because the BEA lacks the training and (obviously) the discipline to conduct a proper crime investigation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *