peekay4 (no. 984): "When we talk about punishment, we need to look at the bigger picture, not just this specific instance -- because punishment for operational mistakes sets a precedent regardless if others are supportive of the pilots or not. Just culture is becoming the predominant safety culture, at least in North America (I can't really speak about elsewhere.) It's not just about pilots, but in all safety critical fields, including all forms of transportation (under the NTSB, Canadian TSB, etc.), nuclear safety (see IAEA's stance on open reporting of errors), medicine, etc.
In fact one of the most notable quotations about just culture was made by a physician [quotation omitted].
A culture of safety must be based on trust. Pilots are human beings asked to make real-time, split-second decisions. Mistakes will happen. The solution is not punishment but to improve the system as a whole.
Some posters here (ahem) seem to be of the opinion that because many planes land successfully at SFO, that means nothing can be learned and nothing needs to be improved. This type of thinking is very dangerous.
Aviation is very safe because we are continuously learning and improving. Once we start blaming, trust will be lost, and the consequences will be severe."
A very thought-provocative post, peekay4. Perhaps you would comment on either or both of two further questions:
1) if there is a dividing line between different levels of accountability or responsibility - and also possibly between levels of sanction - is it not the case that such separating lines are adjusted over time? For example, the criminal offense of rape sometimes was a capital offense in the early 20th century. The point is, if a dividing line is accepted, its acceptance is understood to be subject to adjustment in a later time.
2) is there not a difference between mistake, on one hand, and what in laws and legal processes is identified as "gross negligence"?
I would not attempt, even, to argue with the fundamental premise that trust is a sine qua non of the safety system writ large; that blame and punishment are counter-productive. But I do question, is there not a point at which this rationale gets overtaken and thus becomes secondary to the level of "wrong action" by the aviators? -- and is not this line still a lower level than that which is sufficient to warrant (justify) criminal investigation and even more so, prosecution? I think there is such a point, and it exists in other areas of law, gradations between mistake or bare incompetence; and gross negliglence; gross misconduct; willful misconduct; criminal intent. But again, by these gradations being mentioned I do not mean to slight or ignore the concern over degradation of the safety culture.
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 25th Aug 2017 at 12:25.