Does UK ATC come under Criminal Law?
Thread Starter
Does UK ATC come under Criminal Law?
A simple question (I hope) concerning ATC in the UK:-
Do the actions of ATCOs come under the criminal law. i.e. if a controller makes a mistake which leads to a major accident then can he be tried under the criminal law and end up going to prison?
Thanks for any replies.
Do the actions of ATCOs come under the criminal law. i.e. if a controller makes a mistake which leads to a major accident then can he be tried under the criminal law and end up going to prison?
Thanks for any replies.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a controller preplans and executes a scenario where by they intentionally aim two aircraft at each other so that they collide and manage to score a direct hit without being shown to be mad then they are indeed a criminal.
If they were mad, then they are mad.
If they made a mistake then they made a mistake.
To err is human, to pull off the first case above in the current system is a miracle!!
regards,
DFC
If they were mad, then they are mad.
If they made a mistake then they made a mistake.
To err is human, to pull off the first case above in the current system is a miracle!!
regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: etha
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they made a mistake then they made a mistake.
See the definition of manslaughter.........
Thread Starter
Thanks for the replies.
I realise that the parallel is somewhat tenuous but there have been times in the past when railway signallers have ended up behind bars because of the consequences of their actions.
Has this or could this ever happen to an air traffic controller?
I realise that the parallel is somewhat tenuous but there have been times in the past when railway signallers have ended up behind bars because of the consequences of their actions.
Has this or could this ever happen to an air traffic controller?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is fairly safe to say that you would be charged with 'Manslaughter' if any passenger dies as a result of ATC error. You, your Competency Manager, your Watch/Unit Manager and almost certainly the Chief Exec, would all be charged. It would be up to each individual charged to prove that he/she did nothing negligent or could have put in place a procedure that would have prevented the incident. This is the assumption I have always taken each time I plug in.
See link below for an example. ATCO made an error, everyone gets done.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2962962.stm
See link below for an example. ATCO made an error, everyone gets done.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2962962.stm
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be up to each individual charged to prove that he/she did nothing negligent or could have put in place a procedure that would have prevented the incident
All that has to be demonstrated is that there is "reasonable doubt" that they are guilty, not that they are innocent.
This may be small comfort as you don the cans, but it is an important principle of English law, and this thread is about the principles of English law.
W
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southampton
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think DtyCln is closer to the mark, for coalface ATCOs at least.
Proving who pulled the trigger will be straight forward, proving who loaded the gun, rather less so. In the event of a collision, the moment when a potentially dangerous situation turned into a lethal one would probably be obvious, particualy if it hinged on an ATCO issuing an executive instruction. The onus would then fall to the ATCO to prove that the instruction he issued was the correct one, given the information available to him/her at the time, prevelent conditions, established procedures and level of training.
Proving who pulled the trigger will be straight forward, proving who loaded the gun, rather less so. In the event of a collision, the moment when a potentially dangerous situation turned into a lethal one would probably be obvious, particualy if it hinged on an ATCO issuing an executive instruction. The onus would then fall to the ATCO to prove that the instruction he issued was the correct one, given the information available to him/her at the time, prevelent conditions, established procedures and level of training.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cln/Dty
To prove manslaughter the CPS would have to show that there was some act or ommission which caused the death, and that it would be reasonable to assume that that act or ommission was made through negligence knowing that death or serious injury could result. I fail to see how therefore an ATCO doing, or not doing something would lead to an "All Star Production" in court, unless it could be shown that management failed to prevent it. Working on your princible, then if say an Ambulancewere involved in a fatal accident, then the driver, the former instructor and everyone up as far as the Health Minister would be gripping the bar at the local Crown Court.
Time to don my tin hat I think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To prove manslaughter the CPS would have to show that there was some act or ommission which caused the death, and that it would be reasonable to assume that that act or ommission was made through negligence knowing that death or serious injury could result. I fail to see how therefore an ATCO doing, or not doing something would lead to an "All Star Production" in court, unless it could be shown that management failed to prevent it. Working on your princible, then if say an Ambulancewere involved in a fatal accident, then the driver, the former instructor and everyone up as far as the Health Minister would be gripping the bar at the local Crown Court.
Time to don my tin hat I think!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't just this the case re the mid-air over Switzerland? That the controller might have the finger pointed tactically, but that strategic decisions were also questionable? (I am talking eliptically for obvious reasons)
W
W
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driven by tabloid pressures the criminal justice system has moved on from punishing wicked acts to punishing acts of carelessness to punishing simple human error. In recent weeks a schoolteacher whose misjudgement allowed a boy to drown (even though the boy's mother was at the scene) has been imprisoned. A doctor whose error killed a young patient was given a prison sentence.
If I were a commercial pilot, I would keep my lawyer's phone number written on a blank page in my passport. Vengeance rules.
If I were a commercial pilot, I would keep my lawyer's phone number written on a blank page in my passport. Vengeance rules.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justice system??? Can depend upon the day of the week it seems. Look at the instances of some little b@stard who steals a car and plows down somebody walking down the street, 100 hours community service and a driving ban for 3 years.
I do find it amusing that Human Factors are always ready to classify circumstances regarding an incident - workload, time since last break, cognitive errors involved. And I'm sure this is all compiled and stored in a database somewhere. And not being a legal type, is cognitive error (we are human) a sufficient defence?
An instructor of mine once coined a phrase that will always stick with me ........ Tin plate your a$$.
I do find it amusing that Human Factors are always ready to classify circumstances regarding an incident - workload, time since last break, cognitive errors involved. And I'm sure this is all compiled and stored in a database somewhere. And not being a legal type, is cognitive error (we are human) a sufficient defence?
An instructor of mine once coined a phrase that will always stick with me ........ Tin plate your a$$.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure that no-one wants a long discussion on the CJS here, that's what Jet Blast is for, and why I don't bother to visit it, but the fact (yes FACT ) is that prison/youth custody doesn't work. It is far less effective in reducing offending than community penalties, and often increases offending behaviour.
This isn't a political opinion, it's fact based on the best statistics we have. Daily Mail readers can huff and puff all they like, on this issue they are basing their opinions on prejudice and belief, not fact.
If custody increases liklihood to offend, and middle England doesn't want community penalties, what realistic alternatives are there? Hand-chopping? Flogging? Showing kids that violence is wrong by committing an act of violence on them?
We in the CJS would love to find a way to reduce criminality...that is our raison d'etre...but no-one seems to have found the magic solution yet.
W
This isn't a political opinion, it's fact based on the best statistics we have. Daily Mail readers can huff and puff all they like, on this issue they are basing their opinions on prejudice and belief, not fact.
If custody increases liklihood to offend, and middle England doesn't want community penalties, what realistic alternatives are there? Hand-chopping? Flogging? Showing kids that violence is wrong by committing an act of violence on them?
We in the CJS would love to find a way to reduce criminality...that is our raison d'etre...but no-one seems to have found the magic solution yet.
W
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, getting off the topic a bit with the driving thing.
However, looking at incident reports, many "holes" line up to leading to the situation. And when investigation is completed, it is very scary sometimes to read percentages of blame and who has deemed to have done or not done what.
Emails from staff from a certain ATS provider end with "Ultimately, saftey is everybody's responsibility". Following this, does this mean that everybody in the company is responsible in an incident?
(Edited for typo)
However, looking at incident reports, many "holes" line up to leading to the situation. And when investigation is completed, it is very scary sometimes to read percentages of blame and who has deemed to have done or not done what.
Emails from staff from a certain ATS provider end with "Ultimately, saftey is everybody's responsibility". Following this, does this mean that everybody in the company is responsible in an incident?
(Edited for typo)
Thread Starter
I think one of the salient points here is that it must be an independent body who investigates any accident/incident and publishes it's findings together with their conclusions.
As a pilot the incident which comes to mind was around the time of Lockerbie when a BA 747 was involved in a near incident at LHR. As I recall, due to pressure on AIB and the fact that there had been no loss of life etc., there was no formal inquiry yet the Captain was taken to court and it was then up to a jury to make a decision based on technical aspects rather than the findings of AIB etc. (As an aside, subsequent to this incident the Captain concerned committed suicide, sadly).
I actually believe that any accident is a product of the "system" and it is unfortunate for those on duty who are involved. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that the training you received was perfect in every respect, that the equipment you use is faultless, that the environment you operate in is perfect. The answer is often no, yet it is you that may end up carrying the can. Another thread running on PPrune lists concerns of First Officers who do not want to make waves concerning certains Captains who violate the Company rule of No Smoking on the Flight Deck. There are still some organisations around where personnel are afraid to raise issues for fear of repercussions and yet they are the people who are in the front line should anything go wrong.
I know I have rambled on a bit here but it concerns me that in many walks of life where safety is an issue staff seem to be under more and more pressure to perform on a continual basis. I can work in overload for short periods successfully but not all the time. Incipient amendments to legislation as a result of harmonisation of rules across the EC do not give me cause for encouragement.
As a pilot the incident which comes to mind was around the time of Lockerbie when a BA 747 was involved in a near incident at LHR. As I recall, due to pressure on AIB and the fact that there had been no loss of life etc., there was no formal inquiry yet the Captain was taken to court and it was then up to a jury to make a decision based on technical aspects rather than the findings of AIB etc. (As an aside, subsequent to this incident the Captain concerned committed suicide, sadly).
I actually believe that any accident is a product of the "system" and it is unfortunate for those on duty who are involved. Can you put your hand on your heart and say that the training you received was perfect in every respect, that the equipment you use is faultless, that the environment you operate in is perfect. The answer is often no, yet it is you that may end up carrying the can. Another thread running on PPrune lists concerns of First Officers who do not want to make waves concerning certains Captains who violate the Company rule of No Smoking on the Flight Deck. There are still some organisations around where personnel are afraid to raise issues for fear of repercussions and yet they are the people who are in the front line should anything go wrong.
I know I have rambled on a bit here but it concerns me that in many walks of life where safety is an issue staff seem to be under more and more pressure to perform on a continual basis. I can work in overload for short periods successfully but not all the time. Incipient amendments to legislation as a result of harmonisation of rules across the EC do not give me cause for encouragement.