Pilot scrutiny after an accident

[Tomahawk38]

The following legal case is worth reviewing to show how you can expect to be treated in the unfortunate event of an accident. Especially one which turns to litigation.


#41 onwards is the pilot being quizzed, you have to feel for the poor bloke.


https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#!sy=317183


Assigning blame etc aside, the scrutiny pilots are likely to face after an accident are becoming quite imposing.

[airwolf117]

I didn't read the whole case, just Point 41 onwards.. Holy hell they tear into that guy! Its like they expected him to have a perfect photographic memory of the weather, when he was most likely sweating balls!

Poor guy!

[Sunfish]

you do not talk to anyone without a lawyer, period. Even then they will tell you to choose your words very carefully and a good barrister will help you do it.

For example Q: "Did you pack this bag?" A: "It looks like the bag I packed".

Q: Why were you speeding"? A: "I reject that".

[Creampuff]

This is why I laugh at all the fulmination against CASA's compliance and enforcement activity.

If you are the PIC of an aircraft involved in an accident, CASA is the least of your worries.

[Paragraph377]

It was not me, it was the one armed man!

Pilot blame has been around since the Wright Brothers launched their rickety contraption! Unfortunately we in Australia don't have the luxury of 'pleading the 5th', when being questioned, bullied or pineappled, however the following can help, answer with;

- Not to my recollection
- Not that I recall
- Not to my knowledge

Never answer anything, except perhaps your name and birthdate, without one of Creampuffs lawyer mates present. 'Yes' or 'no' answers can be incriminating so avoid at all costs if you are either guilty or if you suspect you are being lined up for pineappling. Even if innocent a 'yes' or 'no' answer can be incriminating especially if you are dealing with a two bit crook lawyer/prosecutor or a crooked authority figure Safety first!

Bureaucracies such as CASA or governments in general like to use the old 'it was before my time', 'the other mob did it', 'I was in Montreal', 'there was a smoke alarm triggered and I was out of the building at the time' type of excuses. These are always good to remember as well.

[Pinky the pilot]

you do not talk to anyone without a lawyer, period

What Sunfish said!!!

I cannot stress Sunny's advice any more strongly that that. Even if being questioned by a Police Officer, the only things you are obliged to give is your name and address.

You do not and should not have to say anything further until you have a Lawyer present and you are entitled to inform the Police Officer/Investigator/whoever that you will not answer further questions until such time as your lawyer is present.

[Tomahawk38]

Unfortunately for the pilot, this happened in court. His lawyer was probably right there, he is still forced to undergo cross-examination and that's exactly what is occurring in #41 onwards.


When push comes to shove, you will be forced to defend your actions/inactions - be careful folks!

[Horatio Leafblower]

The judge made some interesting comments about judging negligence by reference to the outcomes, rather than the actions of an ordinary reasonable man in the same circumstances.

I think many of us here would do well to re-read those parts and reflect.