Merged: 2003 YPJT Crash - Court Case Decision
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting thought is where would we stand if we did everything as per the SOP's or Ops manual and still came unstuck? By the sounds of things we'd still be liable...
I've resisted reposting on this as Di says, 'we could go on backwards and forwards until the case is closed' (paraphrased).
But, I don't expect to live that long...after all, I'm 63 now and my family history suggests that 30 years is stretching it.
Di seems to think that the case will be settled and the plaintiffs will walk away with their costs re-reimbursed and some sense of justice.
Sadly, the reality is different. The plaintiffs case against AGA re a Shrike accident is still ongoing and it it's been going for twenty three years now.
And there's a case where the pilot WAS clearly negligent.
In the latest case, we can only conjecture what pressures were on the pilot when faced with a nasty case of going nowhere fast.
At the worst he made an error of judgment, but who amongst us is going to throw the first stone.
Somewhere in most pilot's flying careers, there have been errors in judgment and mostly, we've got away with it.
This one was serious and the results catastrophic...but, does an error in judgment under duress equal negligence ?? I hope for most that it doesn't.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those powerlines ... will appear to be a 'significant obstacle' to the pilot of an aircraft which either is not climbing, or one which is barely controllable ...
That momentary "sinking feeling" - or lack of climb - during flap retraction, may have had the effect, if the pilot was assessing the power lines at this time, of convincing him that the aircraft would not climb sufficiently to avoid them.
This is a highly likely possibility and I think was mentioned in the report.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... does an error in judgment under duress equal negligence
An interesting thought is where would we stand if we did everything as per the SOP's or Ops manual and still came unstuck? By the sounds of things we'd still be liable...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think all this talk about the power lines is all that relevant in this particular case now. Evidence was put forward by an "expert" that if the pilot continued to fly straight ahead after take off, with the rate of climb being achieved and with just a marginal left directional alteration he could have flown between the pylons (at or below the height of the pylons) and over the sag in the power lines.
Obviously in the moment the pilot would not be analysing to this degree and could not be expected to. In any event it would be much too close for him to decide to take that chance.
He was not criticised by the Judge for the first turn to avoid the power lines. He was criticised for the second turn back to the strip when he was travelling parallel to the powerlines and climbing slowly.
Di
Obviously in the moment the pilot would not be analysing to this degree and could not be expected to. In any event it would be much too close for him to decide to take that chance.
He was not criticised by the Judge for the first turn to avoid the power lines. He was criticised for the second turn back to the strip when he was travelling parallel to the powerlines and climbing slowly.
Di
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGD135
To be honest, I haven't heard that yet either, but without negligence it's hard to see "blame" can be apportioned.
And blame WAS apportioned by the Judge.
ZEEBEE, I don't believe his actions have been legally considered to be "negligent". I'm not 100% sure, but I don't believe I have yet heard this word used in connection with the pilot's actions.
And blame WAS apportioned by the Judge.
An interesting thought is where would we stand if we did everything as per the SOP's or Ops manual and still came unstuck? By the sounds of things we'd still be liable...
Of course you would still be liable.
Diatryma,
But between them I believe they were responsible for the accident. Perhaps the apportionment is questionable - and I think this may be subject to appeal - we will see.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope you don't work for the ATSB or any safety-related organisation with an attitude like that.
Do you believe that a pilot can ever be responsible (even partly) for the crash of his aircraft?, and
Do you believe that, in the case of this particular crash, the pilot was:
A. Not responsible at all, or
B. Partly responsible, or
C. Fully responsible?
FGD135,
Do some reading on flight safety. The answer to your questions, especially the first one, are blindingly obvious to anybody who has even the most basic understanding of how things work in aviation safety. That you are even asking the question is a concern.
Do some reading on flight safety. The answer to your questions, especially the first one, are blindingly obvious to anybody who has even the most basic understanding of how things work in aviation safety. That you are even asking the question is a concern.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt,
What attitude? Just stating an opinion in a clear and logical manner.....
I'd be surprised if myself and FGD135 are the only ones who are a bit bemused by your posts. Perhaps you would make your position clearer and you would appear more logical if you tried to answer FGD's question rather than dodging the issue...
Di
What attitude? Just stating an opinion in a clear and logical manner.....
I'd be surprised if myself and FGD135 are the only ones who are a bit bemused by your posts. Perhaps you would make your position clearer and you would appear more logical if you tried to answer FGD's question rather than dodging the issue...
Di
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGD135,
I guess perhaps Capn Bloggs is referring to the fact that the thinking has changed over the years from solely blaming the pilot to recognising that there are many other contributing factors to any accident - organizational causes - Swiss cheese and all that. And thats all good IRO determining accident causation with a view to improving safety
However this is a legal case. The goal is not improving safety. The goal is determining who should pay for the deaths and injuries caused. That's reality.
And in this case (as is common in these sort of matters in my experience), the organisation (Fugro) and the pilot were essentially considered as one. They would both be covered by the same insurance policy, they were both represented by the same lawyers and Counsel and most importantly Fugro were legally responsible (vicariously) for the pilots actions as well as for their own liability.
Because of this the Judge would not have been focussed on splitting the liability between Fugro and Penberthy. Determining how much the pilot should be blamed personally for his actions, and how much influence organisational matters had on the cause of the accident would not have entered the Judges mind.
So unfortunately the pilot cops the brunt of things - particularly in the press - on behalf of both himself and the organisation he works for. In this regard I feel heartfelt sorry for him.
Di
I guess perhaps Capn Bloggs is referring to the fact that the thinking has changed over the years from solely blaming the pilot to recognising that there are many other contributing factors to any accident - organizational causes - Swiss cheese and all that. And thats all good IRO determining accident causation with a view to improving safety
However this is a legal case. The goal is not improving safety. The goal is determining who should pay for the deaths and injuries caused. That's reality.
And in this case (as is common in these sort of matters in my experience), the organisation (Fugro) and the pilot were essentially considered as one. They would both be covered by the same insurance policy, they were both represented by the same lawyers and Counsel and most importantly Fugro were legally responsible (vicariously) for the pilots actions as well as for their own liability.
Because of this the Judge would not have been focussed on splitting the liability between Fugro and Penberthy. Determining how much the pilot should be blamed personally for his actions, and how much influence organisational matters had on the cause of the accident would not have entered the Judges mind.
So unfortunately the pilot cops the brunt of things - particularly in the press - on behalf of both himself and the organisation he works for. In this regard I feel heartfelt sorry for him.
Di
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However this is a legal case. The goal is not improving safety. The goal is determining who should pay for the deaths and injuries caused. That's reality.
And in this case (as is common in these sort of matters in my experience), the organisation (Fugro) and the pilot were essentially considered as one. They would both be covered by the same insurance policy, they were both represented by the same lawyers and Counsel and most importantly Fugro were legally responsible (vicariously) for the pilots actions as well as for their own liability.
Because of this the Judge would not have been focussed on splitting the liability between Fugro and Penberthy. Determining how much the pilot should be blamed personally for his actions, and how much influence organisational matters had on the cause of the accident would not have entered the Judges mind.
So unfortunately the pilot cops the brunt of things - particularly in the press - on behalf of both himself and the organisation he works for. In this regard I feel heartfelt sorry for him.
And in this case (as is common in these sort of matters in my experience), the organisation (Fugro) and the pilot were essentially considered as one. They would both be covered by the same insurance policy, they were both represented by the same lawyers and Counsel and most importantly Fugro were legally responsible (vicariously) for the pilots actions as well as for their own liability.
Because of this the Judge would not have been focussed on splitting the liability between Fugro and Penberthy. Determining how much the pilot should be blamed personally for his actions, and how much influence organisational matters had on the cause of the accident would not have entered the Judges mind.
So unfortunately the pilot cops the brunt of things - particularly in the press - on behalf of both himself and the organisation he works for. In this regard I feel heartfelt sorry for him.
Why then do these things drag out for thirty years or more ?
Is it because the Judge being unaware of the vagaries of the technical issues leave a massive legal black hole for insurance legal departments to exploit ?
I recognise that you may not be in a position to comment, but it would be interesting to hear an opinion.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZEEBEE,
I don't know of any that drag on for 30 years - you are obviously aware of a particular matter (AGA?) but every case is different and I don't know anything about that one....
Di
I don't know of any that drag on for 30 years - you are obviously aware of a particular matter (AGA?) but every case is different and I don't know anything about that one....
Di
