Click Here For Link
Is the search for scapegoats or the truth?
A long-standing disagreement between pilots and investigators has resurfaced following the reportedly reluctant attitude taken by the pilot of JAL Flight 907 toward the initial investigation into last Wednesday's near collision involving his plane and another JAL aircraft.
The latest dispute is a typical example of what frequently happens following an air traffic incident. The pilots involved often end up at odds with investigators regarding a question that inevitably crops up: Should steps be taken to ensure that similar incidents do not occur, while also determining the cause of the incident; or should measures be implemented to define criminal responsibility?
The Construction and Transport Ministry's investigation into last week's incident has determined that it was caused by mistaken instructions issued by two air traffic controllers.
Forty-two people on board Flight 907, bound for Naha from Tokyo's Haneda airport, were injured when the pilot--in accordance with the air traffic controllers' orders--put his plane into a steep descent. After narrowly averting a disaster, the aircraft returned to Haneda.
However, investigators at the airport were angry when the plane's pilot, Capt. Makoto Watanabe, demanded a lawyer be present if he was to be questioned about the incident. In addition, he initially refused to comply with a Metropolitan Police Department request to question him.
"Why doesn't he cooperate with police? After all he caused the incident!"
"He says he cannot speak unless a lawyer is with him. What does he think he is--privileged?"
These comments were typical of the 50 e-mails and phone calls the JAL Captains Association, a pilots labor union, received during the first two days following the incident.
According to the union, immediately after Flight 907 touched down at Haneda, three investigators boarded the plane and walked into the cockpit in an attempt to question Watanabe.
Eventually, three of the flight crew members, including the copilot, were asked to deplane, leaving Watanabe alone with the investigators.
At the time, injured passengers--some seriously hurt--were still on board the plane. The investigators asked Watanabe to accompany them to the police station for questioning. But he maintained that his first duty was to report what had happened to the ministry.
According to the union, the investigators and Watanabe argued for an hour about whether he should go to the police station.
In the end, all four crew members, including Watanabe, contacted the union, and a union lawyer arrived at the airport at 8 p.m. It was then decided that questioning would be conducted on another day.
This argument was one of the reasons JAL's briefings on the details of the near collision were initially confused.
"The public thinks that police investigations clarify the cause of an incident. But what police do is investigate crimes. We believe an investigation into the cause of an incident should come first," said Tsutomu Watanabe, deputy chairman of the union.
He said the union would cooperate with the ministry's Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission (AAIC) in determining what had happened and why. However, he added that it was only natural for the pilot to want legal representation to protect his rights, given that the police would treat him as a suspect.
The Japan Federation of Flight Crew Unions, which comprises 10 labor organizations and bodies from airline companies, quoted Watanabe as saying: "It was good that all the passengers and crew members made it back alive due to the right maneuvers taken and the efforts of all those were involved. I believe I acted correctly."
One reason for Watanabe's behavior is the delicate position a pilot is placed in when flight incidents occur.
According to a lawyer experienced in these cases, when a flight incident occurs a pilot is open to four different punishments:
-- If a pilot were to make a false report to the AAIC, the pilot would be punished.
-- A pilot is open to criminal charges, such as professional negligence resulting in injury or death or both if found culpable by a police investigation.
k Certification of professional skills issued under Aviation Law may be canceled.
k The employing airline may punish the pilot.
"Criminal investigations should be conducted on a voluntary basis--the top priority for a captain is to cooperate with the Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission," the lawyer said.
"The captain in last week's JAL incident was only complying with investigations by the relevant organizations in the order of priority."
In the United States, which is very experienced in investigating air transport incidents, the National Transportation Safety Body (NTSB) investigates incidents so that similar incidents do not reoccur. The NTSB frequently exempts pilots and crew members from criminal charges to arrive at the truth.
But in Japan, the AAIC and police hold separate investigations into air traffic incidents. And for its part, the police want to preserve the incident site as it is and question those who were involved as soon as possible.
National Public Safety Commission Chairman Bunmei Ibuki said Friday, "we must ask (pilots and crew members) to comply with police requests to submit to voluntary questioning, so that the police can fulfill their duties."
Meanwhile, Construction and Transport Minister Chikage Ogi, said: "We should undertake a complete investigation to determine what went wrong. Finding out who was responsible comes after that."
She reiterated a suggestion made by Takashi Sasagawa, special minister in charge of science and technology, that the cause of an incident should be discovered by exempting those involved from criminal charges, as is the case in the United States.
The investigation headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Department's Tokyo Airport Police Station questioned the four JAL 907 flight crew members, including Capt. Makoto Watanabe for three hours on Friday.
According to police, Watanabe did not initially agree to answer questions immediately following the incident because he "could not decide by himself" whether to do so as he is a member of an organization.
"Aviation incidents do not stem from one factor. They occur as a result of a chain of several factors," aviation critic Soichi Kaji said.
"Therefore, rather than assigning criminal responsibility, the priority of an investigation should be to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents."
However, Kaji added that there was an aspect about Wednesday's incident that derived from the long-standing conflict between JAL management and the company's labor unions.
"However, the captain was not the pilot of a private jet. He should have been aware of the fact that he was in charge of the lives of more than 400 people, instead of primarily thinking of himself as a union member," Kaji said.
Whereas in the United States, immunity from criminal charges is guaranteed during an NSTB investigation so that similar incidents can be averted, it is not the case in Japan, Kaji said, adding, "Therefore, we have no alternative but to cooperate with the police requests during an investigation."
===============
Pilots, investigators have long history of disputes
By Yomiuri Shimbun
Pilots and investigators have often been at odds over the causes of flight problems that jeopardize safety.
One example concerns an incident involving a Japan Airlines jetliner that occurred in June 1997. The aircraft rocked violently over the Chita Peninsula, Aichi Prefecture, while descending to land at Nagoya airport. Twelve passengers and crew members on board were injured and one of the injured crew members later died as a result.
It is suspected that the aircraft's autopilot system was accidentally disengaged when the pilot abruptly pulled back on the control stick, sending the aircraft into a series of violent pitches.
The case is still under investigation.
According to the Japan Federation of Flight Crew Unions, the pilot was questioned by police about the incident for seven days straight. He was not allowed to contact a lawyer, the council said, adding that he eventually became ill as a result of the marathon interrogation.
In January 1988, a YS-11 operated by Toa Domestic Airways, the forerunner of Japan Air System, overshot the runway at Yonago airport in Tottori Prefecture during takeoff. The aircraft dived into the Nakaumi lagoon, injuring 10 passengers.
The then Transport Ministry Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission (AAIC) concluded that the horizontal stabilizer of the aircraft were not functioning correctly as they had frozen up due to cold weather.
Although the pilot and flight-deck personnel were referred to prosecutors on suspicion of professional negligence resulting in injury, they were not indicted.
A flight operated by the forerunner of Air Nippon, an affiliate of All Nippon Airways that specializes in short-distance domestic flights, made a poor landing at Nakashibetsu airport in eastern Hokkaido in March 1983, injuring 52 passengers and crew members.
The AAIC determined that the cause was pilot error.
The pilot protested the commission's conclusion, saying, "The investigation does not appear to have been conducted scientifically or rationally."
The crew unions council has alleged that police investigators influence those conducted by the AAIC.
"The commission's investigations tend to draw the same conclusions as those reached by police investigations, which are commonly conducted far in advance (of AAIC investigations)," a council official said. "We demand that the commission operate independently from the police in dealing with aircraft incidents and place its priority on investigations designed to work out preventive measures."
In many cases, pilots involved in investigations have suffered financial losses because their employers frequently suspended them during investigations and cut their pay regardless of whether the pilots were deemed responsible for the incidents.
Article By:__Yomiuri Shimbun
The Australia / Japan Connection_ -_ This page is part of the J-Club Website.
_