Air Cocaine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Cocaine
Falcon 50 pilots arrested in Santa Domingo back in 2003, facing a jail sentence of 20 years and having been in custody for 15 months there, did a runner to France, their homeland, where they were re-arrested on a international arrest warrant. Their aircraft carried 680 kg of coke in six (or perhaps twenty, see below, but I would have thought given the few numbers of pax on board, twenty should have raised some suspicion) suitcases.
Now in the French Courts, more details are emerging about why the Dominican tribunal decided to consider the pilots' flight in a Falcon 50 as private. Odos and Fauret asserted that it was commercial and thus claim not to be responsible for its cargo. Witness Melissa Rijo, who describes herself as the supervisor at the time of private flight activities for Swissport at Punta Cana Airport, testified that the Falcon 50 was operating privately. She added that F-GXMC was directed to an apron dedicated to commercial flights, taxied to the private flights area and was then towed close to the airport’s perimeter fence, through which the 20-or-so suitcases filled with cocaine were later carried. Rijo also said, however, that she charged tax at the commercial flight rate.
Another witness, Valentin Rosado Vicioso, a high-ranking police officer, said the crew had deliberately obtained both commercial and private approvals for the upcoming flight. He alleged that the private approval would be the one used if everything went as planned and that the crew would resort to the commercial one if something went wrong.
A cautionary tale I would have thought for all who engage on private ops.
Now in the French Courts, more details are emerging about why the Dominican tribunal decided to consider the pilots' flight in a Falcon 50 as private. Odos and Fauret asserted that it was commercial and thus claim not to be responsible for its cargo. Witness Melissa Rijo, who describes herself as the supervisor at the time of private flight activities for Swissport at Punta Cana Airport, testified that the Falcon 50 was operating privately. She added that F-GXMC was directed to an apron dedicated to commercial flights, taxied to the private flights area and was then towed close to the airport’s perimeter fence, through which the 20-or-so suitcases filled with cocaine were later carried. Rijo also said, however, that she charged tax at the commercial flight rate.
Another witness, Valentin Rosado Vicioso, a high-ranking police officer, said the crew had deliberately obtained both commercial and private approvals for the upcoming flight. He alleged that the private approval would be the one used if everything went as planned and that the crew would resort to the commercial one if something went wrong.
A cautionary tale I would have thought for all who engage on private ops.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the answer already given by
hamster3null
17th Aug 2015, 06:00
Generally speaking, in most systems, pilot is responsible if he acts with "mens rea" - "guilty mind". That is, basically, if he is aware that he's doing something wrong, or he exercises "willful blindness" by intentionally putting himself in a position where he would be unaware of anything illegal being on board the plane.
Specific bounds of "willful blindness" are somewhat imprecise but it's usually enough to exercise normal standard of care. E.g. a pilot on a scheduled flight is off the hook if he is aware of standard protocols (all passengers and luggage being screened by customs officials before they get on the plane) and nothing hinky is happening. On the other hand, if you're flying a small plane and you have no reason to think that your passengers' bags were properly screened, you have to check for yourself or you may be held culpable.
In some criminal law systems there is a category of crimes that don't require mens rea, that's called "strict liability". This is a much lower bar. For example, you can be found guilty of speeding even if you had no intention to speed and you did not know that you were speeding. All that matters is the fact that you were. However, strict liability is rarely (if ever) used for drug crimes
hamster3null
17th Aug 2015, 06:00
Generally speaking, in most systems, pilot is responsible if he acts with "mens rea" - "guilty mind". That is, basically, if he is aware that he's doing something wrong, or he exercises "willful blindness" by intentionally putting himself in a position where he would be unaware of anything illegal being on board the plane.
Specific bounds of "willful blindness" are somewhat imprecise but it's usually enough to exercise normal standard of care. E.g. a pilot on a scheduled flight is off the hook if he is aware of standard protocols (all passengers and luggage being screened by customs officials before they get on the plane) and nothing hinky is happening. On the other hand, if you're flying a small plane and you have no reason to think that your passengers' bags were properly screened, you have to check for yourself or you may be held culpable.
In some criminal law systems there is a category of crimes that don't require mens rea, that's called "strict liability". This is a much lower bar. For example, you can be found guilty of speeding even if you had no intention to speed and you did not know that you were speeding. All that matters is the fact that you were. However, strict liability is rarely (if ever) used for drug crimes
