Merged: 2003 YPJT Crash - Court Case Decision
Thread Starter
Merged: 2003 YPJT Crash - Court Case Decision
From 'The West Australian' Thurs. 12.11.09,
'Liability for the crash of the Cessna twin-engine plane was apportioned two-thirds at the feet of the pilot and the company he worked for....
The other third of negligent liability was found against the engineer who designed and approved a faulty sleeve bearing that was part of the engine fuel pump.'
The pilot was also a plaintiff in the case.
The plane crashed into bush and burst into flames 90 seconds after take-off from Jandakot airport on August 11, 2003. Justice Murray described his decision as "a bit of a win for the plaintiffs".
During a 2 and a half week trial in August the court was told that the engineer used the wrong alloy in replacing a part in the right engine's fuel pump, while the pilot did not follow accepted procedures in an emergency.'
The full article is on page 9 for those who wish to peruse further.
Much food for thought here in my humble opinion.
'Liability for the crash of the Cessna twin-engine plane was apportioned two-thirds at the feet of the pilot and the company he worked for....
The other third of negligent liability was found against the engineer who designed and approved a faulty sleeve bearing that was part of the engine fuel pump.'
The pilot was also a plaintiff in the case.
The plane crashed into bush and burst into flames 90 seconds after take-off from Jandakot airport on August 11, 2003. Justice Murray described his decision as "a bit of a win for the plaintiffs".
During a 2 and a half week trial in August the court was told that the engineer used the wrong alloy in replacing a part in the right engine's fuel pump, while the pilot did not follow accepted procedures in an emergency.'
The full article is on page 9 for those who wish to peruse further.
Much food for thought here in my humble opinion.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also here:
Plane crash compo 'in millions' - The West Australian
Plane crash survivor tells of hardship - The West Australian
Plane crash survivors win court action - The West Australian
Of specific mention: "Justice Murray said Mr Penberthy was a highly qualified pilot but there was an obligation for him to take steps that were designed to enable an aircraft to land safely."This he did not do," he said."
If the pilot's personal property is at stake here this is a big wakeup call to all pilots to restructure their finances/assets such that it's not owned in their name but in a trust. Legal advice required here for sure.
Plane crash compo 'in millions' - The West Australian
Plane crash survivor tells of hardship - The West Australian
Plane crash survivors win court action - The West Australian
Of specific mention: "Justice Murray said Mr Penberthy was a highly qualified pilot but there was an obligation for him to take steps that were designed to enable an aircraft to land safely."This he did not do," he said."
If the pilot's personal property is at stake here this is a big wakeup call to all pilots to restructure their finances/assets such that it's not owned in their name but in a trust. Legal advice required here for sure.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyers rejoice....!
Of specific mention: "Justice Murray said Mr Penberthy was a highly qualified pilot but there was an obligation for him to take steps that were designed to enable an aircraft to land safely."This he did not do," he said."
It is one thing to dissect these things with the benefit of hindsight sitting in an air-conditioned office and quite another when there's a sick aircraft heading for a set of power lines.
Unfortunately, this is going to go forever....and guess who's going to win?
Justice Murray described his decision as "a bit of a win for the plaintiffs".
The court case is still going on with a Shrike accident that occurred circa 1986.
Last edited by ZEEBEE; 12th Nov 2009 at 12:56. Reason: gramma
Pilot Conviction
The conviction yesterday of an experienced pilot following an accident at Jandakot Airport raises questions about the liabilities we face while working. The conviction, according to an ABC news report, was because 'the pilot was negligent for failing to ensure the plane (sic) was safe to fly'. How can a pilot be sure an aircraft is safe to fly with regards to engineering matters? The conviction appears harsh and maybe it should be appealed for all our sakes. Judge finds pilot was negligent - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I assumed since he was employed by Fugro at the time their insurance company would be dealing with the case and any claims/lawsuits.
I think from memory in the GA Award , and most agreements, there is an indemnity clause to protect employees from liability when at work.
I think from memory in the GA Award , and most agreements, there is an indemnity clause to protect employees from liability when at work.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing I find interesting about this case is the double standards being applied here. While extremely sad for all concerned, these people were at work. That would mean the accident would come under the workers compensation act, wouldn't it? If Alex was flying in the aircraft by himself and this occurred, my understanding is he would only get the relevant workers compensation numbers, not a negligence claim against his employer. The Richard Court Liberal government removed the right for an employee to sue for negligence on an injury received at work. That is my broad understanding of W.A. worker compensation law.
How is this different? I feel for Alex and all involved in the tragedy and hope this can be sorted without the lawyers making to much money and anguish.
How is this different? I feel for Alex and all involved in the tragedy and hope this can be sorted without the lawyers making to much money and anguish.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the pilot's personal property is at stake here this is a big wakeup call to all pilots to restructure their finances/assets such that it's not owned in their name but in a trust.
....only the lawyers who will still be sending their grandchildren to private schools on the benefits of this one.
hope this can be sorted without the lawyers making to much money
according to an ABC news report, was because 'the pilot was negligent for failing to ensure the plane (sic) was safe to fly'.
The conviction appears harsh and maybe it should be appealed for all our sakes
Di
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diatryma
What's wrong with lawyers making money ? Nothing at all.
They have their job to do....BUT
In these cases, a Judge makes a decision based on a very difficult to verify position that opens the field up for legal challenges that will go until the Sun cools down.
The apportioning of blame in this instance is guaranteed to do just that.
There was an alternative judgment that was used years ago that involved exposure to hazard in the absence of criminal negligence.
There was no criminal negligence in this case.
Whats wrong with lawyers making money? Everyone needs to live. If you want/need a good lawyer then you have to pay the price. Same as a good plumber, electrician etc....... What I hate is lawyers making money unscrupulously - no evidence of that here.
They have their job to do....BUT
In these cases, a Judge makes a decision based on a very difficult to verify position that opens the field up for legal challenges that will go until the Sun cools down.
The apportioning of blame in this instance is guaranteed to do just that.
There was an alternative judgment that was used years ago that involved exposure to hazard in the absence of criminal negligence.
There was no criminal negligence in this case.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no-one can be convicted in a civil lit matter .. apportionment for liability or vicarious liability applies .. the percentage has been decreed - the amount for which is yet to be determined .. all of which can be appealed.
For those that are minded to .. set up a family trust to hold assets. Assets of a trust (which is not a legal entity ie cannot be sued in it's own right unlike a person or a Pty. Ltd. business) .. are then for the benefit of beneficiaries named in the trust deed .. unless one of the beneficiaries is declared bankrupt - then a bankruptcy trustee can lay claim to that persons benefit under the Bankruptcy Act of the jurisdiction you live in ..
The judgment decision is in 3 parts on the W.A. Supreme Court site if you're into a little bit of light reading!
For those that are minded to .. set up a family trust to hold assets. Assets of a trust (which is not a legal entity ie cannot be sued in it's own right unlike a person or a Pty. Ltd. business) .. are then for the benefit of beneficiaries named in the trust deed .. unless one of the beneficiaries is declared bankrupt - then a bankruptcy trustee can lay claim to that persons benefit under the Bankruptcy Act of the jurisdiction you live in ..
The judgment decision is in 3 parts on the W.A. Supreme Court site if you're into a little bit of light reading!
This link is for one part of decision, makes for some interesting reading
[URL="http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2009WASC0316/$FILE/2009WASC0316.pdf"]
It seems that the judges main gripe was the pilots decision to turn back to the runway. The decision to turn seemed to be ok - but the judge thought that th pilot should have stopped the turn to parallel the power lines he was concerned with clearing, and continued in a straight line to maximise performance.
Raises some important issues for all pilots!
[URL="http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2009WASC0316/$FILE/2009WASC0316.pdf"]
It seems that the judges main gripe was the pilots decision to turn back to the runway. The decision to turn seemed to be ok - but the judge thought that th pilot should have stopped the turn to parallel the power lines he was concerned with clearing, and continued in a straight line to maximise performance.
Raises some important issues for all pilots!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZEEBEE,
Apart from where you agree with me in your first two sentences, I dont understand the rest of your post.
You seem to be blaming the judge (for apportioning blame which is his/her job) and the lawyers for doing their jobs.... instead of (heaven forbid) accepting that the engineer and the pilot made mistakes that they need to be accountable for and that other engineers and pilots should learn from.
Di
Apart from where you agree with me in your first two sentences, I dont understand the rest of your post.
You seem to be blaming the judge (for apportioning blame which is his/her job) and the lawyers for doing their jobs.... instead of (heaven forbid) accepting that the engineer and the pilot made mistakes that they need to be accountable for and that other engineers and pilots should learn from.
Di
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have rather strong legal representation in my family so I wouldn't want them to be without a quid. I also would not want them to pursue a case to the detriment of all concerned in an argument either.
I go back to my original point of workers compensation. If I am injured at work from a faulty machine do I have the right to pursue a civil case against my employer, the machine manufacturer and the person who operated that machine? I thought that line of legal argument was closed by Richard Court's government in WA? No negligence for workers comp. Please, can someone enlighten me or is aviation different and why?
I go back to my original point of workers compensation. If I am injured at work from a faulty machine do I have the right to pursue a civil case against my employer, the machine manufacturer and the person who operated that machine? I thought that line of legal argument was closed by Richard Court's government in WA? No negligence for workers comp. Please, can someone enlighten me or is aviation different and why?
I vagually remember something re workers comp. If you're injured you can get copensation on a no blame basis - ie. even if you do something stoopid and injure yourself you can still get money. However if you believe your employers negligence has caused your injury then you can pursue them for damages, however if you do not succeed you lose your claim to workers comp payments and may have to pay and payments you have recieved back.
I think, i'm no expert
I think, i'm no expert
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Di
You raise an interesting point and since it is fashionable to indulge in lawyer bashing, I must confess to have succumbed.
Nevertheless, my point is also valid that these cases get thrown into neverland by judiciary that simply believe that because an aircraft crashed, someone is to blame and they must pay.
Well, my experience is that someone pays BUT it is ONLY the lawyers who reap any benefits.
And that's the problem...these cases are contentious DESPITE any pronouncements by a judge who is often not qualified to understand the potentially hazardous nature of aviation.
Some accidents are just that, and neither Mr. Penberthy nor the engineer/s set out with the intent on damaging people and property.
One can't even truly say that they were negligent because both were fully aware of the nature of their environment and surely did their best to keep things as safe as they could be under the circumstances.
And so the arguments will go on and on while the funds of the parties will continue to get depleted.
By the time any final funds are allocated, they will have diminished to nothing.
Apart from where you agree with me in your first two sentences, I dont understand the rest of your post.
You seem to be blaming the judge (for apportioning blame which is his/her job) and the lawyers for doing their jobs.... instead of (heaven forbid) accepting that the engineer and the pilot made mistakes that they need to be accountable for and that other engineers and pilots should learn from.
You seem to be blaming the judge (for apportioning blame which is his/her job) and the lawyers for doing their jobs.... instead of (heaven forbid) accepting that the engineer and the pilot made mistakes that they need to be accountable for and that other engineers and pilots should learn from.
Nevertheless, my point is also valid that these cases get thrown into neverland by judiciary that simply believe that because an aircraft crashed, someone is to blame and they must pay.
Well, my experience is that someone pays BUT it is ONLY the lawyers who reap any benefits.
And that's the problem...these cases are contentious DESPITE any pronouncements by a judge who is often not qualified to understand the potentially hazardous nature of aviation.
Some accidents are just that, and neither Mr. Penberthy nor the engineer/s set out with the intent on damaging people and property.
One can't even truly say that they were negligent because both were fully aware of the nature of their environment and surely did their best to keep things as safe as they could be under the circumstances.
And so the arguments will go on and on while the funds of the parties will continue to get depleted.
By the time any final funds are allocated, they will have diminished to nothing.
I know that there is no way of absolutely denying an individuals right to compensation and justice after acts of negligence (I am NOT infering that the pilot was negligent in this case), and rightly so.
However, if cases like this continue, passengers will only be allowed on charter flights after signing indemnity forms.
However, if cases like this continue, passengers will only be allowed on charter flights after signing indemnity forms.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZEEBEE,
The lawyers always "win" as it were - as they always get paid.... and as I have said I think that is fair enough.
But I think the main "winners" (if you can call them that!) in these cases are the victims who will receive the compensation they need and deserve. They will get their compensation (including interest which by the court scales is very generous), and the lawyers will get their fees.
It's just a pity the process all takes so long and the victims have to wait for years and sit through a lengthy trial and possibly appeal and possibly another trial over quantum ....the survivors are forced to re-live the event and the family and friends of the deceased have to continue to be reminded of their loss and what their loved ones went through.....but that's the system.
OK but that doesn't mean they are not negligent. If you drive into the back of the car in front of you because you were'nt paying attention, you are still negligent even though you didn't intend to crash.
Obviously the Judge disagrees.....
Hopefully most people involved in aviation who see this decision will learn from it and realise the consequences of their decisions .... rather than burying their head in the sand moaning about lawyers and how unfair the legal system is etc....
Signing off now ZB as we could discuss this forever and never agree.
Di
Edited to add: I feel almost as sorry for the pilot and engineer as I do for the injured, the deceased and all their families and friends. I agree that it is easy to look back on their mistakes with hindsight and decide who was to blame. Certainly no one would want to be in the pilot's shoes during this horrific flight. But hopefully many pilots will learn from his mistakes - and not turn back for the strip in circumstances where you are too low but still gaining height. It would take a lot of courage and clear thinking to resist the urge I would think. But this scenario (turning back for the strip) happens far too often.
The lawyers always "win" as it were - as they always get paid.... and as I have said I think that is fair enough.
But I think the main "winners" (if you can call them that!) in these cases are the victims who will receive the compensation they need and deserve. They will get their compensation (including interest which by the court scales is very generous), and the lawyers will get their fees.
It's just a pity the process all takes so long and the victims have to wait for years and sit through a lengthy trial and possibly appeal and possibly another trial over quantum ....the survivors are forced to re-live the event and the family and friends of the deceased have to continue to be reminded of their loss and what their loved ones went through.....but that's the system.
neither Mr. Penberthy nor the engineer/s set out with the intent on damaging people and property.
surely did their best to keep things as safe as they could be under the circumstances
Hopefully most people involved in aviation who see this decision will learn from it and realise the consequences of their decisions .... rather than burying their head in the sand moaning about lawyers and how unfair the legal system is etc....
Signing off now ZB as we could discuss this forever and never agree.
Di
Edited to add: I feel almost as sorry for the pilot and engineer as I do for the injured, the deceased and all their families and friends. I agree that it is easy to look back on their mistakes with hindsight and decide who was to blame. Certainly no one would want to be in the pilot's shoes during this horrific flight. But hopefully many pilots will learn from his mistakes - and not turn back for the strip in circumstances where you are too low but still gaining height. It would take a lot of courage and clear thinking to resist the urge I would think. But this scenario (turning back for the strip) happens far too often.
Last edited by Diatryma; 15th Nov 2009 at 22:57.
Di,
Hardly relevant in this case.The judge's judgement against the pilot is very worrisome.
If you drive into the back of the car in front of you because you were'nt paying attention, you are still negligent even though you didn't intend to crash.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Bloggs,
Out of context my comment is totally irrelevant. My point (if you read my post and exchanges
) is the it does not matter that the pilot and/or engineer in question in this case did not "set out with the intent on damaging people and property" as ZEEBEE put it. THAT is hardly relevant!
The judgement against the pilot is worrisome. So is the judgement against the engineer. 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.
Di
Out of context my comment is totally irrelevant. My point (if you read my post and exchanges
) is the it does not matter that the pilot and/or engineer in question in this case did not "set out with the intent on damaging people and property" as ZEEBEE put it. THAT is hardly relevant!The judgement against the pilot is worrisome. So is the judgement against the engineer. 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.
Di
Thread Starter
Aye Cap'n.......Hence the post.
And, as an aside, those powerlines, although they seem to be 'well' to the south from the point where we all get airborne, I am very sure that they will appear to be a 'significant obstacle' to the pilot of an aircraft which either is not climbing, or one which is barely controllable and maybe, perhaps, gaining altitude - although be it very slowly.
The distance, as measured by Google Earth, from the brakes release point is only some 2.63 nm, or 4.87km.....
And for those who suggest that to go 'under' may have been an option - it is NOT!
For those not familiar with the layout at JT, there are actually three (3) sets of those powerlines, two 'high' and the third is smaller and 'low' - thus effectively 'filling in' the gap and blocking off that option - if that was a 'contemplation' in the first place - it would very soon become apparent that this is not a way to go....
To paraphrase Mr Gann, of 'Fate Is The Hunter' - he was a 'poor man indeed'.....
Understand, I was not part of this, but we are all going to be affected by this decision as it may apply to us in its own way.
That golf course just prior to the freeway may look very inviting when next I am 'commiting aviation', but even that would require some manoeuvring, first to the right to 'make room' and then a substantial left turn to line up sufficiently - IF the aeroplane is behaving satisfactorily on 'one'.
Or, would I hit the ground first??
The penultimate post quote 'because you weren't paying attention' is a bit of a 'red herring' - I would imagine that this situation would have one's 'complete and absolutely undivided attention'.....
Worrisome ? - Now there's a word.....
I do not propose any 'answers'...I wouldn't dare. Only the pilot in 'that' aircraft at 'that' time with 'that load', under 'those' conditions would be able to 'in hindsight' think what MAY have been able to be done 'better'.
For us, a valuable lesson in the way the law may regard our profession and our decisions. For the pilot, no doubt he would wish it didn't happen so.....
Like I said in the first post - Much food for thought here........
Cheers.
p.s. Sorry Di - was still composing as you were posting....
And, as an aside, those powerlines, although they seem to be 'well' to the south from the point where we all get airborne, I am very sure that they will appear to be a 'significant obstacle' to the pilot of an aircraft which either is not climbing, or one which is barely controllable and maybe, perhaps, gaining altitude - although be it very slowly.
The distance, as measured by Google Earth, from the brakes release point is only some 2.63 nm, or 4.87km.....
And for those who suggest that to go 'under' may have been an option - it is NOT!
For those not familiar with the layout at JT, there are actually three (3) sets of those powerlines, two 'high' and the third is smaller and 'low' - thus effectively 'filling in' the gap and blocking off that option - if that was a 'contemplation' in the first place - it would very soon become apparent that this is not a way to go....
To paraphrase Mr Gann, of 'Fate Is The Hunter' - he was a 'poor man indeed'.....
Understand, I was not part of this, but we are all going to be affected by this decision as it may apply to us in its own way.
That golf course just prior to the freeway may look very inviting when next I am 'commiting aviation', but even that would require some manoeuvring, first to the right to 'make room' and then a substantial left turn to line up sufficiently - IF the aeroplane is behaving satisfactorily on 'one'.
Or, would I hit the ground first??
The penultimate post quote 'because you weren't paying attention' is a bit of a 'red herring' - I would imagine that this situation would have one's 'complete and absolutely undivided attention'.....
Worrisome ? - Now there's a word.....
I do not propose any 'answers'...I wouldn't dare. Only the pilot in 'that' aircraft at 'that' time with 'that load', under 'those' conditions would be able to 'in hindsight' think what MAY have been able to be done 'better'.
For us, a valuable lesson in the way the law may regard our profession and our decisions. For the pilot, no doubt he would wish it didn't happen so.....
Like I said in the first post - Much food for thought here........
Cheers.
p.s. Sorry Di - was still composing as you were posting....
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 16th Nov 2009 at 11:52.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
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...