投稿者：鈴木小太郎 投稿日：2012年12月 7日(金)00時12分45秒
コンコルド墜落事故の裁判に関するエコノミストの記事をきっかけに少しツイートしたので、備忘のためにまとめておきます。
ま、特に意見はなく、単なる感想ですが。
---------
The Concorde disaster
Continental gets off
Dec 3rd 2012, 16:46 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
LAST Thursday a French court cleared Continental Airlines (now part of United) and a mechanic of manslaughter in the 2000 crash of a Concorde operated by Air France. The drop-off in the number of passengers using Concorde after the crash provided one reason for the termination of the supersonic programme in 2003. The disaster, which killed all 109 aboard and four people on the ground, was found to have been caused by a piece of metal that had fallen off a Continental-operated DC-10 and onto the runway at Charles De Gaulle airport in Paris. The Concorde ran over the metal during take-off, causing a tyre to explode and sending pieces of rubber hurtling towards the fuel tanks, which ignited and caused the fatal crash.
Two years ago, a lower court found the airline and mechanic guilty?a decision the airline's lawyers lambasted as "absurd". The airline was ordered to pay around ?2m (about $2.7m) in civil and criminal penalties. But Thursday's unexpected ruling threw out the criminal portion of that penalty, leaving Continental owing Air France around ?1m in civil penalties.
The French appeals court ultimately ruled that the mechanic who installed the incorrect metal part on the Continental DC-10 "could never have imagined a scenario where this simple titanium blade could cause such a disaster." There's something to that: the mistake that supposedly caused the disaster happened weeks before and an ocean away, when the mechanic first installed the part on the DC-10 in Houston. Others could conceivably have caught that mistake in the intervening weeks, but nobody did?and the fact that an aircraft as structurally vulnerable as the Concorde happened to run over the part was an epic piece of bad luck. The court decided, essentially, that the Butterfly Effect can't convey criminal responsibility.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/12/concorde-disaster?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/continentalgetsoff
2000年のコンコルド墜落事故、事故機が離陸する5分前に同じ滑走路を離陸したアメリカのコンチネンタル航空DC-10がエンジン部品の金属片を落とし、それがコンコルドのタイヤ破裂、更に燃料タンク破裂を惹き起こしたことが原因でしたが、2年前の下級審判決で、事故の16日前に金属片を取り付けた整備責任者とコンチネンタル航空の刑事責任を認めていたのを、今回、控訴審は刑事責任を否定し、コンチネンタル航空の民事的責任のみ認めたそうですね。
コンコルド墜落事故
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B3%E3%83%AB%E3%83%89%E5%A2%9C%E8%90%BD%E4%BA%8B%E6%95%85
エコノミストの記事の中に The court decided, essentially, that the Butterfly Effect can't convey criminal responsibility.バタフライ効果に刑事責任を問うのは無理、という表現がありますが、カオス理論のバタフライ効果云々は別に判決に出てきた訳ではなく、記者の解釈なんでしょうね。
因果関係の連鎖をどんどん遡って行ったときに、さすがにそこまで刑事責任を追及するのは無理となると、日本の裁判所の場合は相当因果関係がないという表現を使いますね。
バタフライ効果はカオス理論を分かりやすく説明するための比喩の一つですから、判決で使えるような表現ではないですね。
バタフライ効果
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%90%E3%82%BF%E3%83%95%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E5%8A%B9%E6%9E%9C
＞筆綾丸さん
『闘いの日本史』は未読ですが、「鉢木」には興味を惹かれますね。
早めに確認してみます。
コンコルド墜落事故の裁判に関するエコノミストの記事をきっかけに少しツイートしたので、備忘のためにまとめておきます。
ま、特に意見はなく、単なる感想ですが。
---------
The Concorde disaster
Continental gets off
Dec 3rd 2012, 16:46 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, D.C.
LAST Thursday a French court cleared Continental Airlines (now part of United) and a mechanic of manslaughter in the 2000 crash of a Concorde operated by Air France. The drop-off in the number of passengers using Concorde after the crash provided one reason for the termination of the supersonic programme in 2003. The disaster, which killed all 109 aboard and four people on the ground, was found to have been caused by a piece of metal that had fallen off a Continental-operated DC-10 and onto the runway at Charles De Gaulle airport in Paris. The Concorde ran over the metal during take-off, causing a tyre to explode and sending pieces of rubber hurtling towards the fuel tanks, which ignited and caused the fatal crash.
Two years ago, a lower court found the airline and mechanic guilty?a decision the airline's lawyers lambasted as "absurd". The airline was ordered to pay around ?2m (about $2.7m) in civil and criminal penalties. But Thursday's unexpected ruling threw out the criminal portion of that penalty, leaving Continental owing Air France around ?1m in civil penalties.
The French appeals court ultimately ruled that the mechanic who installed the incorrect metal part on the Continental DC-10 "could never have imagined a scenario where this simple titanium blade could cause such a disaster." There's something to that: the mistake that supposedly caused the disaster happened weeks before and an ocean away, when the mechanic first installed the part on the DC-10 in Houston. Others could conceivably have caught that mistake in the intervening weeks, but nobody did?and the fact that an aircraft as structurally vulnerable as the Concorde happened to run over the part was an epic piece of bad luck. The court decided, essentially, that the Butterfly Effect can't convey criminal responsibility.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/12/concorde-disaster?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/continentalgetsoff
2000年のコンコルド墜落事故、事故機が離陸する5分前に同じ滑走路を離陸したアメリカのコンチネンタル航空DC-10がエンジン部品の金属片を落とし、それがコンコルドのタイヤ破裂、更に燃料タンク破裂を惹き起こしたことが原因でしたが、2年前の下級審判決で、事故の16日前に金属片を取り付けた整備責任者とコンチネンタル航空の刑事責任を認めていたのを、今回、控訴審は刑事責任を否定し、コンチネンタル航空の民事的責任のみ認めたそうですね。
コンコルド墜落事故
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B3%E3%83%AB%E3%83%89%E5%A2%9C%E8%90%BD%E4%BA%8B%E6%95%85
エコノミストの記事の中に The court decided, essentially, that the Butterfly Effect can't convey criminal responsibility.バタフライ効果に刑事責任を問うのは無理、という表現がありますが、カオス理論のバタフライ効果云々は別に判決に出てきた訳ではなく、記者の解釈なんでしょうね。
因果関係の連鎖をどんどん遡って行ったときに、さすがにそこまで刑事責任を追及するのは無理となると、日本の裁判所の場合は相当因果関係がないという表現を使いますね。
バタフライ効果はカオス理論を分かりやすく説明するための比喩の一つですから、判決で使えるような表現ではないですね。
バタフライ効果
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%90%E3%82%BF%E3%83%95%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E5%8A%B9%E6%9E%9C
＞筆綾丸さん
『闘いの日本史』は未読ですが、「鉢木」には興味を惹かれますね。
早めに確認してみます。
