 An aircraft accident is first and foremost a tragedy. From the moment such a tragedy occurs, the clock starts ticking as people start looking for answers. This can lead to speculation, frustration, and potentially a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding regarding the events that surrounded the tragedy. The past has shown us that the most effective way to get to the answers is through an investigation. However, there is a complication. If we start to look at all those different people that are directly or indirectly affected by an accident, it appears on the surface that they all have the same motive. They all want to get to the bottom of what happened. Beneath the surface, though, each of these parties has differing underlying motives for wanting to find out what happened. Furthermore, some of these underlying motives conflict with each other and may influence how the parties behave in an investigation. For this reason, rather than one single investigation, two different investigations are conducted. A judicial investigation looks at what happened from the motive of apportioning blame or liability. It seeks to look back and see who is at fault. An air safety investigation looks at what happened from the motive of identifying safety hazards and preventing reoccurrences. It seeks to look forward and improve future air safety. There is a separation between these two investigations. An internationally agreed upon set of rules defines the terms of this separation, known as Annex 13 to the Convention of International Civil Aviation, Air Accident and Incident Investigation, or simply Annex 13 for short. Both investigations get access to the same factual data, such as access to the wreckage and witnesses, but each investigation needs to conduct their own analysis. In this way, it is easier for parties to participate in the analysis and interpretation of data for the safety investigation without the risk of incriminating themselves.