Pilots on Trial
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: lancashire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking from a personal point of view, there were many aspects of this incident which were farcical to say the least.It was not only the jury that was flummoxed by the intricacys of the case..the judge halted the proceedings at the end of the second week, to ask 'excuse me, but where does the co-pilot sit?'.
There were also aspects imperitive to Captain Stewarts defence which were deemed to be unimportant and therefore were not mentioned-for example,the fact that the same defect with the autopilot had occured in the same aircraft previously.When Captain Stewart informed British Airways on landing that the autopilot had failed,the aircraft was in the air, unchecked, within hours.
British Airways did indeed offer Captain Stewart a position as a co-pilot after he was found guilty,strangely, of the charge of endangering people on the ground yet not guilty of endangering people in the air.Yet after paying his fine, a paltry sum, Captain Stewart did not accept their kind offer,as he did not believe he deserved demotion, though he did agree with the judges summing up that his reactions,when realising the autopilot was not funtionning correctly 'were a millisecond too slow'.
Captain Stewart took full responsibility for his crews actions as he was a proud and honourable man and it was his pride that made him take his life. He lived for flying, he lived for the camaraderie, he lived for the travel that flying afforded him. British Airways alone were not responsible for his death, neither was the CAA, the jury, the legal system, the judge,his defence team or the press,they all contributed equally.
There were also aspects imperitive to Captain Stewarts defence which were deemed to be unimportant and therefore were not mentioned-for example,the fact that the same defect with the autopilot had occured in the same aircraft previously.When Captain Stewart informed British Airways on landing that the autopilot had failed,the aircraft was in the air, unchecked, within hours.
British Airways did indeed offer Captain Stewart a position as a co-pilot after he was found guilty,strangely, of the charge of endangering people on the ground yet not guilty of endangering people in the air.Yet after paying his fine, a paltry sum, Captain Stewart did not accept their kind offer,as he did not believe he deserved demotion, though he did agree with the judges summing up that his reactions,when realising the autopilot was not funtionning correctly 'were a millisecond too slow'.
Captain Stewart took full responsibility for his crews actions as he was a proud and honourable man and it was his pride that made him take his life. He lived for flying, he lived for the camaraderie, he lived for the travel that flying afforded him. British Airways alone were not responsible for his death, neither was the CAA, the jury, the legal system, the judge,his defence team or the press,they all contributed equally.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serendipity
I wasn't involved in the case so don't know, but there may well be force in what you say. I don't think any useful purpose was served by prosecuting and it appears to have resulted in the tragic loss of a life.
I have discussed the case with two people (separately), one of whom was very senior in BA and the other very senior in the CAA at the relevant time. They both thought the prosecution was justified because Captain Stewart wouldn't admit what he had done was wrong. Although I have enormous respect for both of them, I was unpersuaded that it was a good reason. Why should he if he didn't think he had? Even if convicted (which he was), it was very unlikely to change his view.
That case may (I don't know) have been an illustration of the problems caused by the risk of prosecution. I do know from experience that pilots under criminal investigation and at risk of being prosecuted are, understandably and reasonably, cautious about what they say. An open discussion from which things may be learnt can only take place if there is no risk of prosecution. There is a very real risk that prosecuting does little or nothing to enhance flight safety, and can have precisely the opposite effect.
FL
I wasn't involved in the case so don't know, but there may well be force in what you say. I don't think any useful purpose was served by prosecuting and it appears to have resulted in the tragic loss of a life.
I have discussed the case with two people (separately), one of whom was very senior in BA and the other very senior in the CAA at the relevant time. They both thought the prosecution was justified because Captain Stewart wouldn't admit what he had done was wrong. Although I have enormous respect for both of them, I was unpersuaded that it was a good reason. Why should he if he didn't think he had? Even if convicted (which he was), it was very unlikely to change his view.
That case may (I don't know) have been an illustration of the problems caused by the risk of prosecution. I do know from experience that pilots under criminal investigation and at risk of being prosecuted are, understandably and reasonably, cautious about what they say. An open discussion from which things may be learnt can only take place if there is no risk of prosecution. There is a very real risk that prosecuting does little or nothing to enhance flight safety, and can have precisely the opposite effect.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 6th Jan 2007 at 20:36.
Controversial, moi?
If the late Captain Glenn Stewart deserved prosecution then so did the manager who authorised, over the radio I believe, the co-pilot, suffering from food poisoning, to operate to Cat 3 limits when unqualified to do so.
Like so many incidents there were many factors. The fact that Captain Stewart alone carried the can and was prosecuted was a disgrace.
Like so many incidents there were many factors. The fact that Captain Stewart alone carried the can and was prosecuted was a disgrace.
