|
Kiwi engineers guilty in helo pilot death
|
"the father of nine..."
No wonder he could only afford an R22! SB |
Lawyers! Don't you just love'em?
Counsel for Potts, Pip Hall, said the tragic accident was the result of human error, and not deliberate criminal offending. "Circumstances conspired that caused an error by him which had horrendous consequences, but it was not such gross misconduct that requires him to be labelled a killer," said Hall. I say Guv....yer client was found guilty of Manslaughter.....as in "killing" another Human Being. The sad truth is mistakes happen for any number of reasons.....and sometimes you just have to live with the knowledge your mistake caused great harm to others. I would guess the court's punishment will not equal that already being suffered by those found culpable.:( |
There's more to those two fulla's then meets the eye.
|
It is so easy to call such mistakes "criminal". I believe these verdicts do nothing but establish public executions for vengeance, and they do nothing to further the safety that we all seek.
It would be interesting if the public lawyers who prosecute these cases were held to the same standard. What if prosecutors were held to the same standard? If they make legal mistakes, and fail to convict true criminals (after all, their mistake endangers the public!) shouldn't prosecutors be sent to jail? My point is, when does a mistake become a crime? I do believe in civil liability for one's actions, I do not believe in criminal penalties when professionals act in reasonable good faith. |
Does that mean that when a fatal crash is deemed to be due to "Pilot error" then the pilot will be labelled a killer as well??
|
Acting in good faith
Hi Nick,
acting in good faith implies that a person does the work that can be reasonably expected of them. I would suggest that if the work had to be supervised by a licensed engineer, the reasonable assumption would be that the supervision invovled more than just a look through a peep hole after all the work had been completed. While i would agree that a distinction exists between the intent to do harm, and harm caused as a consequence of negligence, this accident appears to have been the direct result of procedures not being properly followed. Surely this makes the set of circumstances that lead to a death more than a mere "mistake", and that is why criminal charges have been brought? I don't think this is any kind of call for vengence, and i would argue that cases like these - or indeed against pilots when they are found to be grossly negligent - do indeed "further the safety that we all seek" Andy Ps, i would agree that lawyers should be held accountable as well! |
And knowing a little about the operation these guys were running, I think they are getting what they deserve!
|
I dont know these guys...but...
Though it is regrettable that this has happened - It is a criminal offence to release an aircraft back into service in a non-airworthy condition, as it is a criminal act to deliberately fly into the ground, buildings and/or people. Though I don't know of NZ specific regulations I believe they are similar to EASA and IATA regulations and should include the need to properly supervise unlicenced fitters work - its the same with all "unskilled" labour (even if they have great skills!) This lack of supervision is the prime reason for having these regulations. The big difference between a car mechanic and a Licenced aircraft engineer/mechanic is that the aircraft guy knows the consequences of his actions or inactions. It appears these guys may have forgotten that. However; mistakes do happen, and most of us (Mechs, Techs and Engineers) have made similar mistakes - but have caught them, before they have done harm or damage, through following maintenance procedures. That is why we have them. (Swiss Cheese theory) By jailing (gaoling!) these guys, I believe the NZ courts have set a great precedent and a good lesson for all Flight Safety related classrooms. There, but for the grace.... ...and yes - some pilots could be found guilty of either murder or manslaughter by negligence and possibly invalidate their insurance. I think that, in aviation, we are all guilty - until found innocent. |
I think that, in aviation, we are all guilty - until found innocent Yep hole in one there, check out the OZ section of their Act below and work it out for yourself, can you prove yourself NOT reckless when something innocuous happens. This section of the Act was at the centre of an action following an accident in Cairns years ago, where a camera man had clipped himself to the seat belt, totally unbeknown to the pilot. despiute a valiant rescue attempt by the pilot, the camera man perished in deep water. The pilot got charged, but got off. As a result we now all have standards on our harnesses for camera, hoist etc. 20A Reckless operation of aircraft (1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person. (2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:09. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.