Captain Stable asks:
Do you really think they (a jury) are qualified to judge what would constitute a mistake by a pilot and what would amount to negligence? You think they would understand the pressures leading a pilot into making errors in the heat of the moment?
Yes.
Juries frequently decide complex matters far removed from their own worlds. In any body of 12 people chosen at random there is a cross-section of experience, academic achievement and intelligence. Bear in mind that even if someone hasn't got a good (or any) academic record it doesn't mean he/she is not intelligent. Where a criminal trial involves technical matters, juries almost invariably hear evidence from experts called as witnesses by the opposing sides. I think we will gradually move towards a system where experts are appointed by the court, or appointed by agreement between the parties, thereby removing the risk of bias.
I recently defended a helicopter engineer accused of manslaughter following a crash which killed three people. The engineering issues were complex and I doubt if all the jurors fully understood all of them. But, I have no doubt whatsoever that they were fully capable of considering the circumstances in which the engineer came to make the mistake which had fatal consequences. And, after the Judge had explained it to them, fully understood the legal difference between ordinary negligence and the higher degree of negligence required before someone is guilty of manslaughter. (The engineer was acquitted.)
Of course barristers for each side put forward opposing arguments on the evidence, but we are not permitted to argue law to the jury. Matters of law are for the Judge. During the 'Summing Up' the Judge explains the relevant law to the jury in ordinary language and how they should apply it to the facts which they find to be proved when deciding upon their verdict(s).
Not surprisingly, the jury system is most commonly criticised when a jury which has heard all the evidence returns a verdict which the critics - who have not - think is wrong. I don't suggest I have always agreed with all vericts in all the jury trials in which I've been involved over the years, but it is only extremely rarely that I haven't been able to understand how/why the jury came to its conclusion.
In an aviation case which requires an examination of what a pilot did, and the circumstances in which he did it, I'd much prefer a jury chosen at random to a jury consisting only of pilots.
Pilots (like barristers) are very harsh on their own, often far too harsh. Look at the posts we often see on PPRuNe when it appears that a pilot may have made an error. Many pilots seem to adopt a 'holier-than-thou' approach and many more are far too quick to condemn without waiting for all the facts to emerge.
As for the rest of it, I don't believe anyone would disagree that pilots who either deliberately or recklessly endanger their aircraft, cargo, crew and passengers should be prosecuted.
I do. IMHO, it should depend upon the facts/circumstances.
The article by
Geoffrey Thomas raises some very interesting questions - far more interesting than the pros and cons of the jury system
Is any useful purpose served by prosecuting a pilot/controller following a crash or other incident?
Or does fear of prosecution deter those involved from being entirely open, thereby preventing others from learning from the incident?
The article quotes Paul McCarthy, VP-technical standards at the International Federation of Airline Pilots Assns as saying:
"The need to obtain the testimony of those individuals involved in an accident - even if it may disclose errors which are self-incriminating - so that the cause of the accident can be determined far outweighs any benefit that could be derived from a criminal prosecution."
I think there's much in what he says.
Is fear of prosecution really a deterrent?
Are pilots not more likely to think, consciously or sub-consciously, 'I won't do this because it might kill someone - including me.'
Is any useful purpose achieved by prosecuting people who make a mistake, even a serious mistake?
I wouldn't say prosecution is never justified but, in the vast majority of cases, we have much more to gain (in terms of flight safety) by a full and frank disclosure of all the facts. That is highly unlikely to happen when the pilots (and other aviation professionals) under investigation know they are at risk of being prosecuted and possibly going to prison.
Which course is more beneficial in the longer term?