PK-KAR, you wrote as point 4;
There is no intention to do harm in this case. The Captain was channeled in his attention in how to get on the ground but with minimum casualties. Stress levels and the fixation prevented his mind from realizng this was not the right thing to do.
in Law, negligence does not consider intent. If you intend to do something dangerous then you will be charged with recklessness, or reckless endangerment, a more serious charge than negligence. If you do something for which the unforeseen circumstance is death or injury, then you are liable. The charge brought will be decided by the prosecutors based on the degree of intent and the subsequent degree of culpability will be decided by the court. This does not remove the need to prosecute this individual, whatever his intentions.
If, as you suggest, he was trying to land the aircraft with the 'minimum of casualties' then he should certainly be charged with recklessness.
Fixation and stress are not a defense in this instance. If it were, most landings would result in crashes!
Capn Bloggs, you cropped my quote and so altered the meaning to suit your point of view. Very amateur and not very ethical. Please explain why you did that? I absolutely did NOT say what you chose to quote. Try writing your own argument instead of cropping and pasting mine.
I said,
Attitudes to this type of incident/accident vary around the world, as we know, but if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry.
You said I said,
if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry.
I am talking about the attitude to criminal negligence, not the causes of accidents. Try re-reading the post carefully.