Criminalisation of Accidents
rubik,
I utterly reject your comments. Unethical indeed. Did you or did you not write "if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry."?
I did write my own argument after I quoted text that you wrote. It is attitudes like yours that will wind back air safety, not advance it. The vast majority of accidents are mistakes, and taking a black/white of criminal negligence is shallow but typical of lawyers and people who don't understand complex aviation systems who just want somebody to blame.
Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Perhaps you could explain exactly why "if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry." Is it because pilots will stop crashing aeroplanes because they (or anybody else in the aviation supply/support chain, right up to the leaders of government, for that matter)?will never break any rules?
Capn Bloggs, you cropped my quote and so altered the meaning to suit your point of view. Very amateur and not very ethical. Please explain why you did that? I absolutely did NOT say what you chose to quote. Try writing your own argument instead of cropping and pasting mine.
I said,
Attitudes to this type of incident/accident vary around the world, as we know, but if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry.
You said I said,
if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry.
I am talking about the attitude to criminal negligence, not the causes of accidents. Try re-reading the post carefully.
I said,
Attitudes to this type of incident/accident vary around the world, as we know, but if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry.
You said I said,
if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry.
I am talking about the attitude to criminal negligence, not the causes of accidents. Try re-reading the post carefully.
I did write my own argument after I quoted text that you wrote. It is attitudes like yours that will wind back air safety, not advance it. The vast majority of accidents are mistakes, and taking a black/white of criminal negligence is shallow but typical of lawyers and people who don't understand complex aviation systems who just want somebody to blame.
Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Perhaps you could explain exactly why "if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry." Is it because pilots will stop crashing aeroplanes because they (or anybody else in the aviation supply/support chain, right up to the leaders of government, for that matter)?will never break any rules?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When is an accident not an accident?
When a pilot's (or dispatcher's, or technician's...) behavior is so egregious as to place persons at unnecessary and unreasonable risk of life and limb, and expert witnesses validate this charge, why should other pilots be complicit in shielding an offender from prosecution?
I know some countries would try pilots as scapegoats, but there are ways to counter this through sanctions. And there is room for an international aviation tribunal, and reason to believe this might improve international safety and execution of justice.
When a pilot's (or dispatcher's, or technician's...) behavior is so egregious as to place persons at unnecessary and unreasonable risk of life and limb, and expert witnesses validate this charge, why should other pilots be complicit in shielding an offender from prosecution?
I know some countries would try pilots as scapegoats, but there are ways to counter this through sanctions. And there is room for an international aviation tribunal, and reason to believe this might improve international safety and execution of justice.
Lets have a go at getting back on track.
The issue is what constitutes admissable evidence. International protocols protect evidence from an accident investigation being used in criminal proceedings. Countries that are members of ICAO agree to this and their regulatory authorities incorporate it into their system.
The issue is NOT whether or not pilots can or cannot be prosecuted for negligence, it is the question of what evidence can be used in court to prove this. CVR's cannot be used to prove innocence either.
Illegal phone tapping constitutes and produces similar issues, there are a number of other examples.
Removing these protections or ignoring them reduces the ability of investigators to get at the causes of accidents and thus prevent the next one.
The issue is what constitutes admissable evidence. International protocols protect evidence from an accident investigation being used in criminal proceedings. Countries that are members of ICAO agree to this and their regulatory authorities incorporate it into their system.
The issue is NOT whether or not pilots can or cannot be prosecuted for negligence, it is the question of what evidence can be used in court to prove this. CVR's cannot be used to prove innocence either.
Illegal phone tapping constitutes and produces similar issues, there are a number of other examples.
Removing these protections or ignoring them reduces the ability of investigators to get at the causes of accidents and thus prevent the next one.
The issue still revolves around what you seem to have mistated below
Countries that are members of ICAO agree to this and their regulatory authorities incorporate it into their system.
This is the best compromise that could be worked out between all the differences in societies among states. In reality we ain't quite a United Nations yet.
So while I support your call for focus in this thread, we must at the same time keep aware of the complexity of the issues
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certain countries, India being one that comes to mind, the authorities down load CVR data and store it, whether the a/c is involved in an incident or not.
Summing up, everything that is said on flight deck of an Indian registered a/c from the word go, is recorded and stored.
Watch your back!
Summing up, everything that is said on flight deck of an Indian registered a/c from the word go, is recorded and stored.
Watch your back!
Re post #38
Fine post, HarryMann.
It is a lesson very few here indeed show has been learnt, but having said that, one can sure tell the aviators. Aviation safety is unique in that it's principles are beyond the individual. Aviation safety rests upon principles such as the willingness to be wrong once in a while so long as one is right most of the time. Beancounters hate that and are more and more successful at eradicating such "wasteful" thinking. Your comment therefore, could not be more appropos, nor closer to the truth, and of course, as I know you would know only too well, it goes far beyond crew selection.
Skill, native ability, intelligence and momentary capacity all play a role in the moments, hours and years either in preventing an accident, or leading up to an accident. Like a watercourse, the "causes" meander quietly and largely unseen by those who don't understand aviation, around the hard, resistant places but the soft places yield to their pressures and sooner or later they come together in a stream or river of causes. Momentary human incapacity meets Newton so to speak, and human failing in the form of what looks like negligence, causes an accident. Once in a while it really looks like negligence and it is SO easy to stop the question at that point because we are understandably deeply angry and deeply hurting. But to what end is punishment sought? What is the ultimate resolution in terms of future safety? Is the response personal, or is it for others?
Those who don't truly understand aviation leap to punish the "perps", wholly ignorant of the antecedents and aviation's (and to a lesser degree, only because they can pull over and think, rails' and shippings'), unique basis of safety principles. In the end, aviation safety has not achieved it's remarkable record through the proceedings of "crime and punishment" but through intelligent analysis of it's mistakes, technical and human, (something which the medical profession could certainly learn from) and designing and placing safety programs which collect and examine the very data which says, "there is an accident waiting to happen here". After all, "investigation" only prevents the second accident.
Aviation's biggest challenges do not come from the ignorance of other professions or, however innocently, those who don't comprehend aviation, of how aviation deals with its problems and disasters but, curiously, from internal ignorance of the bean-counters and those who otherwise believe that shareholders and profit are more important than conducting the business with the aforementioned principles in mind. After all, ignoring these principles can only make a manager look good for so long.
Take a look at the four major incidents, (with no fatalities) which have occured already, all in one month - January. Highly trained, highly experienced crews in every case. What is their collective worth to their employer now? Yet such a system is on the way to being dismantled in favour of quick training, huge pressures to increase production, ignoring fatigue issues and thin fuel reserves, to cite just a few examples. But who will come to the profession to earn $26,000US/year after obtaining a university degree and spending time in the bush packing fish and pumping floats? Not this generation. They are going elsewhere for more than twice the money and better, more secure, less picayune futures. This fact along with the others discussed here portend a crisis in aviation far beyond the nonsense over cancelled flights because of "no crews". But the antecedents will be long gone by the time the statistics show an increase in the accident/fatality rates.
Aviators' resistance, indeed outright hostility, towards those who judge from afar, is borne not of arrogance or haughtiness even though it looks and feels like it, but from a certain knowledge borne of experience, or, to put it succinctly, large, multiple squirts of adrenaline over a career.
As a qualifier to be an aviation manager in whatever capacity but especialy one who has his/her eye more on the books than on the safety data, one ought to have one or two such "raw" experiences before being permitted a computer, a pencil and a comfy office with a title on the door...
...and the lessons permeated their flight-crew selection and training, lessons which have borne fruit in the longer term and no doubt still influence BA's thinking.
It is a lesson very few here indeed show has been learnt, but having said that, one can sure tell the aviators. Aviation safety is unique in that it's principles are beyond the individual. Aviation safety rests upon principles such as the willingness to be wrong once in a while so long as one is right most of the time. Beancounters hate that and are more and more successful at eradicating such "wasteful" thinking. Your comment therefore, could not be more appropos, nor closer to the truth, and of course, as I know you would know only too well, it goes far beyond crew selection.
Skill, native ability, intelligence and momentary capacity all play a role in the moments, hours and years either in preventing an accident, or leading up to an accident. Like a watercourse, the "causes" meander quietly and largely unseen by those who don't understand aviation, around the hard, resistant places but the soft places yield to their pressures and sooner or later they come together in a stream or river of causes. Momentary human incapacity meets Newton so to speak, and human failing in the form of what looks like negligence, causes an accident. Once in a while it really looks like negligence and it is SO easy to stop the question at that point because we are understandably deeply angry and deeply hurting. But to what end is punishment sought? What is the ultimate resolution in terms of future safety? Is the response personal, or is it for others?
Those who don't truly understand aviation leap to punish the "perps", wholly ignorant of the antecedents and aviation's (and to a lesser degree, only because they can pull over and think, rails' and shippings'), unique basis of safety principles. In the end, aviation safety has not achieved it's remarkable record through the proceedings of "crime and punishment" but through intelligent analysis of it's mistakes, technical and human, (something which the medical profession could certainly learn from) and designing and placing safety programs which collect and examine the very data which says, "there is an accident waiting to happen here". After all, "investigation" only prevents the second accident.
Aviation's biggest challenges do not come from the ignorance of other professions or, however innocently, those who don't comprehend aviation, of how aviation deals with its problems and disasters but, curiously, from internal ignorance of the bean-counters and those who otherwise believe that shareholders and profit are more important than conducting the business with the aforementioned principles in mind. After all, ignoring these principles can only make a manager look good for so long.
Take a look at the four major incidents, (with no fatalities) which have occured already, all in one month - January. Highly trained, highly experienced crews in every case. What is their collective worth to their employer now? Yet such a system is on the way to being dismantled in favour of quick training, huge pressures to increase production, ignoring fatigue issues and thin fuel reserves, to cite just a few examples. But who will come to the profession to earn $26,000US/year after obtaining a university degree and spending time in the bush packing fish and pumping floats? Not this generation. They are going elsewhere for more than twice the money and better, more secure, less picayune futures. This fact along with the others discussed here portend a crisis in aviation far beyond the nonsense over cancelled flights because of "no crews". But the antecedents will be long gone by the time the statistics show an increase in the accident/fatality rates.
Aviators' resistance, indeed outright hostility, towards those who judge from afar, is borne not of arrogance or haughtiness even though it looks and feels like it, but from a certain knowledge borne of experience, or, to put it succinctly, large, multiple squirts of adrenaline over a career.
As a qualifier to be an aviation manager in whatever capacity but especialy one who has his/her eye more on the books than on the safety data, one ought to have one or two such "raw" experiences before being permitted a computer, a pencil and a comfy office with a title on the door...
Last edited by PJ2; 8th Feb 2008 at 07:00.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
I forgot to note that before my Bieleschweig talk, David Evans published a couple of pages (pp6-7) on some of my views in
Air Accident Digest 1(4)
in February 2007.
Thanks also to Fangio for his anecdote about Germany.
In response to SR71's request, the URL to Annex 13 was immediately posted. I think the salient comment for this discussion is Recommendation 5.4.1: "Any judicial or administrative proceedings to apportion blame or liability should be separate from any investigation conducted under the provisions of this Annex."
That's it, folks. No ICAO agreement prevents any use of any material for any local-judicial purpose at all. It just says that you can't do a single investigation and, on the one hand, produce an ICAO report from it, and on the other, produce a prosecutor's opening note.
Indeed, it would be hard to imagine most of the nations in the world agreeing to let an international agreement usurp their sovereignty over their own laws. That principle of sovereignty was established, at least in the so-called Western world, by the Peace of Westfalia in the 17th century, agreed some 40-70 kms away from where I am now writing, and it has worked well so far.
So much for history. Back to the present.
If somebody flying for a UK airline made a final approach into, say, Manchester, at, say, VREF+100, put his wheels on the ground and ran off the end, killing large numbers of people, does anybody here seriously doubt that heshe would be prosecuted for gross negligence and jailed if found guilty? And what would you imagine would be the reaction in England to, say, an Indonesian WWW site on which Indonesian aviators pontificated about how the prosecution in England was going to affect the progression of aviation safety?
Laws governing accidental deaths and negligence have been around a lot longer than airplanes and they are there for very good reasons, from which aviation is not immune.
I am more with rubik101 and GXER on this one. Yes, do not criminalise accidents inappropriately, but on the other hand one cannot overlook behavior which has been socially disapprobated for centuries. And just because the man has been *charged* does not mean he will be *convicted*. Indeed, there might be extenuating circumstances which the trial will uncover.
The main reason I worry about criminalisation is that many, if not most, aviation accidents involve complex interplays of many types of factors, as PJ2 and others have noted. And getting into the habit of picking one person out as largely responsible does not help deal with all those other factors. It also encourages people to hide information which might be useful in preventing accidents in the future.
But CVR data and FDR data are simply there. There should be no worry about obtaining access to them in the future. So the "endangering future evidence" worry is not there.
And when one has an accident that is prima facie largely due to the egregious behavior of one individual, then it can surely make sense to determine in the usual fashion whether that individual is accountable for hisher behavior or not.
PBL
I forgot to note that before my Bieleschweig talk, David Evans published a couple of pages (pp6-7) on some of my views in
Air Accident Digest 1(4)
in February 2007.
Thanks also to Fangio for his anecdote about Germany.
In response to SR71's request, the URL to Annex 13 was immediately posted. I think the salient comment for this discussion is Recommendation 5.4.1: "Any judicial or administrative proceedings to apportion blame or liability should be separate from any investigation conducted under the provisions of this Annex."
That's it, folks. No ICAO agreement prevents any use of any material for any local-judicial purpose at all. It just says that you can't do a single investigation and, on the one hand, produce an ICAO report from it, and on the other, produce a prosecutor's opening note.
Indeed, it would be hard to imagine most of the nations in the world agreeing to let an international agreement usurp their sovereignty over their own laws. That principle of sovereignty was established, at least in the so-called Western world, by the Peace of Westfalia in the 17th century, agreed some 40-70 kms away from where I am now writing, and it has worked well so far.
So much for history. Back to the present.
If somebody flying for a UK airline made a final approach into, say, Manchester, at, say, VREF+100, put his wheels on the ground and ran off the end, killing large numbers of people, does anybody here seriously doubt that heshe would be prosecuted for gross negligence and jailed if found guilty? And what would you imagine would be the reaction in England to, say, an Indonesian WWW site on which Indonesian aviators pontificated about how the prosecution in England was going to affect the progression of aviation safety?
Laws governing accidental deaths and negligence have been around a lot longer than airplanes and they are there for very good reasons, from which aviation is not immune.
I am more with rubik101 and GXER on this one. Yes, do not criminalise accidents inappropriately, but on the other hand one cannot overlook behavior which has been socially disapprobated for centuries. And just because the man has been *charged* does not mean he will be *convicted*. Indeed, there might be extenuating circumstances which the trial will uncover.
The main reason I worry about criminalisation is that many, if not most, aviation accidents involve complex interplays of many types of factors, as PJ2 and others have noted. And getting into the habit of picking one person out as largely responsible does not help deal with all those other factors. It also encourages people to hide information which might be useful in preventing accidents in the future.
But CVR data and FDR data are simply there. There should be no worry about obtaining access to them in the future. So the "endangering future evidence" worry is not there.
And when one has an accident that is prima facie largely due to the egregious behavior of one individual, then it can surely make sense to determine in the usual fashion whether that individual is accountable for hisher behavior or not.
PBL
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NeverLand
Age: 24
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reason I worry about criminalisation is that many, if not most, aviation accidents involve complex interplays of many types of factors, as PJ2 and others have noted. And getting into the habit of picking one person out as largely responsible does not help deal with all those other factors. It also encourages people to hide information which might be useful in preventing accidents in the future.
A.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik101,
Thanks, I prefer answers like this rather than...
Expat400, go and reread what I said in #21, I never said the guy should walkaway scot free or not even be considered to be brought to court. And FYI, those two are not my personal friends. Lots of first officers and recent captains here have said that the F/O basically screwed up in letting such a situation happen. Prosecuting the Captain and not the F/O will just mean, next time a mad left seater wants to land blue side down, the F/O should just do nothing and hope he survives!
Their flying careers are over anyways with or without this criminal case being brought. As innocent or guilty as the we want the guy to be, he's not going anywhere near the controls of an aircraft anymore. We're not that stupid to let this guy continue unhindered or without a serious look at his suitability.
If you think the first officer is innocent while the Captain is guilty, I pity the guy sitting on your left if you're on the right. By the way, you said idiots. I presume you include the first officer into that group, so why don't you put some blame on the f/o too?
Anyways...
Well, the charge is "mistake causing death", and not the more specifit "mistake causing aircraft accident leading to damage or destruction of aircraft, with loss of life."
There's a law specific to aircraft accidents and criminal culpability. We haven't heard anything that the charges are along this... but more on the general manslaughter charge instead... perhaps the prosecutor prefers bringing 6 charges in the hope of 1 being successful, but the more aviation specific will probably be easier to gain a conviction, but only 1 count...
---
The prevention of the use of the accident investigation report for the criminal proceedings is definitely the right thing to do.
The thing is, do we have to pick one or the other?
The sad irony of this is that the guy who's been frank about how he made the mistake is being criminalized while those running around airside with criminal intent remains free.
Let's overload the aircraft, and not tell the Captain we overloaded it... let him sign the document... So plane crashes, police comes along, we just say, "the Captain signed it." The silly thing is, the police buys that version of the defence. You don't want to know how often this happens (this method of overloading, not the crash)...
This is the problem with law enforcement in Aviation in Indonesia. A pilot refuses to fly the aircraft because it is unsafe, so the police decided not to investigate the airline, but decided to investigate the pilots for criminal intent to cause damage/loss to the airline!
Does the protection extend to the police not being able to read the accident investigation report to point them in the direction on where they need to get the evidence from? If so, this is gonna be a very difficult case.
I do not think Indonesia signed up to abide by all except for Annex 13... AFAIK, as far as the minister of communications (transport) is concerned, we still have to abide by Annex 13. He is however unsatisfied by the guarantees from the police that they have not violated Annex 13, as they so far have refused to say so in writing. Anyways, the accident investigation report in Indonesia is protected by law from being used as evidence in court.
---
PBL, nice post!
---
But while many disagree with criminalization, not all are protesting the case. What seems to bother most people here is that the Captain is now in prison awaiting trial, and this has been seen as the presumption of guilt... and to use the reason of "fear of destroying evidence" ?
PK-KAR
in Law, negligence does not consider intent. If you intend to do something dangerous then you will be charged with recklessness, or reckless endangerment, a more serious charge than negligence. If you do something for which the unforeseen circumstance is death or injury, then you are liable. The charge brought will be decided by the prosecutors based on the degree of intent and the subsequent degree of culpability will be decided by the court. This does not remove the need to prosecute this individual, whatever his intentions.
If, as you suggest, he was trying to land the aircraft with the 'minimum of casualties' then he should certainly be charged with recklessness.
If, as you suggest, he was trying to land the aircraft with the 'minimum of casualties' then he should certainly be charged with recklessness.
Absolute rubbish! You are trying to defend a situation where complete idiots who never should be allowed close to an aircraft can continue to threathen the lives of innocent people.
The guy should get 20 years in prison. Minimum.
The greatest threat to flight safety would be if this guy doesn't get punished.
Blame it on the FO? You're pathetic! Must be your friend sitting there...
The guy should get 20 years in prison. Minimum.
The greatest threat to flight safety would be if this guy doesn't get punished.
Blame it on the FO? You're pathetic! Must be your friend sitting there...
Their flying careers are over anyways with or without this criminal case being brought. As innocent or guilty as the we want the guy to be, he's not going anywhere near the controls of an aircraft anymore. We're not that stupid to let this guy continue unhindered or without a serious look at his suitability.
If you think the first officer is innocent while the Captain is guilty, I pity the guy sitting on your left if you're on the right. By the way, you said idiots. I presume you include the first officer into that group, so why don't you put some blame on the f/o too?
Anyways...
If, as you suggest, he was trying to land the aircraft with the 'minimum of casualties' then he should certainly be charged with recklessness.
There's a law specific to aircraft accidents and criminal culpability. We haven't heard anything that the charges are along this... but more on the general manslaughter charge instead... perhaps the prosecutor prefers bringing 6 charges in the hope of 1 being successful, but the more aviation specific will probably be easier to gain a conviction, but only 1 count...
---
The prevention of the use of the accident investigation report for the criminal proceedings is definitely the right thing to do.
It's absurd to argue that pilots should be immune to the consequences of professional negligence, including possible criminal charges.
At the same time, it's clear that a 'no blame' approach of accident investigation authorities is conducive to further improvements in aviation safety.
At the same time, it's clear that a 'no blame' approach of accident investigation authorities is conducive to further improvements in aviation safety.
Prosecution of flight crew or ground crew who have done their job in good faith and to the best of their ability will not help air safety at all. This will only lead to crew covering their tracks and not co-operating with investigators (Remember the Canadian Pacific collision in Sydney).
Let's overload the aircraft, and not tell the Captain we overloaded it... let him sign the document... So plane crashes, police comes along, we just say, "the Captain signed it." The silly thing is, the police buys that version of the defence. You don't want to know how often this happens (this method of overloading, not the crash)...
This is the problem with law enforcement in Aviation in Indonesia. A pilot refuses to fly the aircraft because it is unsafe, so the police decided not to investigate the airline, but decided to investigate the pilots for criminal intent to cause damage/loss to the airline!
The issue is what constitutes admissable evidence. International protocols protect evidence from an accident investigation being used in criminal proceedings. Countries that are members of ICAO agree to this and their regulatory authorities incorporate it into their system.
The issue is NOT whether or not pilots can or cannot be prosecuted for negligence, it is the question of what evidence can be used in court to prove this. CVR's cannot be used to prove innocence either.
The issue is NOT whether or not pilots can or cannot be prosecuted for negligence, it is the question of what evidence can be used in court to prove this. CVR's cannot be used to prove innocence either.
Thus if the laws of the state give preference to criminalization of accident investigation then that state may simply state that it abides by ICAO Annex 13 as a signatory except for: articles such and such.
---
PBL, nice post!
---
But while many disagree with criminalization, not all are protesting the case. What seems to bother most people here is that the Captain is now in prison awaiting trial, and this has been seen as the presumption of guilt... and to use the reason of "fear of destroying evidence" ?
PK-KAR
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PBL
The main reason I worry about criminalisation is that many, if not most, aviation accidents involve complex interplays of many types of factors, as PJ2 and others have noted. And getting into the habit of picking one person out as largely responsible does not help deal with all those other factors. It also encourages people to hide information which might be useful in preventing accidents in the future.
Good post PBL Criminalization of accidents all too often focus on the pilots, where in many cases the real guilty persons are to be found at a much higher level.
Dryden & Mt Erebus are classic examples of pilots making bad decisions that were initially and narrow mindedly blamed on the pilots. But as it turned out they were just as much victims as anyone else onboard.
In my mind the big difference is whether the actions were deliberate and premeditated, i.e. lets fly it under the bridge kind of stuff, or whether the actions were performed in good faith, even if they were erroneous.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft have been crashing for over a century now so aircraft accident investigation is not a new science (although some investigators clearly still embrace "The Bad Apple Theory").
The legal concepts have been around for centuries, as PBL asserts.
The parties involved in the birth of ICAO Annex 13 were clearly familiar with both.
The debate is not new.
But is there really a trend towards increasing criminalization of pilots involved in accidents? Is that what the data shows or are a few high profile cases bucking the trend?
If so, surely the pertinent question (for those at the front end of commercial aircraft) is "Why?"
The legal concepts have been around for centuries, as PBL asserts.
The parties involved in the birth of ICAO Annex 13 were clearly familiar with both.
The debate is not new.
But is there really a trend towards increasing criminalization of pilots involved in accidents? Is that what the data shows or are a few high profile cases bucking the trend?
If so, surely the pertinent question (for those at the front end of commercial aircraft) is "Why?"
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CapnBloggs writes;
I utterly reject your comments. Unethical indeed. Did you or did you not write "if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry."?
Answer, NO, I didn't write that and you know very well I didn't. Just what are you trying to prove by cropping my quote? It's a pointless exercise as it proves nothing except that you either haven't read my post in full, merely snatched half a sentence that you seem to think, sensationally proving me wrong or, you are simply lazy.
He also wrote;
I did write my own argument after I quoted text that you wrote. It is attitudes like yours that will wind back air safety, not advance it. The vast majority of accidents are mistakes, and taking a black/white of criminal negligence is shallow but typical of lawyers and people who don't understand complex aviation systems who just want somebody to blame.
So, most accidents are mistakes are they? We have now reduced the discussion to a banal and childish argument.
I was driving through the red light when I hit and killed the child but it was a mistake. I didn't intend to kill her and I want you to let me go because it was actually a mistake, no matter what the photographic evidence shows.
For heavens sake!!
Go rant in JetBlast if that is the level of your argument.
I utterly reject your comments. Unethical indeed. Did you or did you not write "if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry."?
Answer, NO, I didn't write that and you know very well I didn't. Just what are you trying to prove by cropping my quote? It's a pointless exercise as it proves nothing except that you either haven't read my post in full, merely snatched half a sentence that you seem to think, sensationally proving me wrong or, you are simply lazy.
He also wrote;
I did write my own argument after I quoted text that you wrote. It is attitudes like yours that will wind back air safety, not advance it. The vast majority of accidents are mistakes, and taking a black/white of criminal negligence is shallow but typical of lawyers and people who don't understand complex aviation systems who just want somebody to blame.
So, most accidents are mistakes are they? We have now reduced the discussion to a banal and childish argument.
I was driving through the red light when I hit and killed the child but it was a mistake. I didn't intend to kill her and I want you to let me go because it was actually a mistake, no matter what the photographic evidence shows.
For heavens sake!!
Go rant in JetBlast if that is the level of your argument.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4Greens
Are you honestly implying that a fair and thorough investigation into why an accident occurs is wrong?
If, after such an investigation is carried out, there is strong evidence of wilful negligence, then the perpetrator must be punished.
Otherwise where does this end? If a pilot and his crew hang one on and manage to get airborne a few hours later under the influence, do you think they should be immune from prosecution?
What is the difference (considering how highly professional those in the aviation industry are supposed to be) between turning up and flying half cut, and deliberately ignoring safe practices despite several warning indicators?
Yes there should be due process... the police etc are not experts in aviation by any means, but until foul play is ruled out, they have a part to play in any investigation - under the very watchful eye of the experts; in the UK the AAIB.
Aircrew and other professionals in the industry are not above common law, however much they might like to think otherwise.
Fred737 wrote
The police were doing their job. In the immediate aftermath of the BA B777 incident, no one knew exactly what occurred to cause the event. It would be negligent of the police not to attend.
The reason the UK is one of the leading exponents of accident prevention and investigation is because of the 'just culture' it has (it used to be called a 'blameless culture', but that has changed). For a 'just culture' to exist, a thorough investigation must be carried out.
It might not be pleasant having the police interview the crew, but if you have nothing to hide, they will very quickly fade into the background as in your example. The most opportune time for such interviews is in the immediate aftermath of the incident... that is when memories are most fresh and, like it or not, when the exact state of those involved can be assessed.
Having the police involved at that early stage very quickly put paid to any chance of some idiot of a reporter or 'eye witness' from claiming that the crew were to blame because they were hungover etc.
Having the police involved from the outset will actually serve to protect the crew. I'm no great fan of the police, some of their policing policy is IMHO wrong, but by doing what they did, they stopped the crew from possibly being unduly scrutinised by the gutter press.
Are you honestly implying that a fair and thorough investigation into why an accident occurs is wrong?
If, after such an investigation is carried out, there is strong evidence of wilful negligence, then the perpetrator must be punished.
Otherwise where does this end? If a pilot and his crew hang one on and manage to get airborne a few hours later under the influence, do you think they should be immune from prosecution?
What is the difference (considering how highly professional those in the aviation industry are supposed to be) between turning up and flying half cut, and deliberately ignoring safe practices despite several warning indicators?
Yes there should be due process... the police etc are not experts in aviation by any means, but until foul play is ruled out, they have a part to play in any investigation - under the very watchful eye of the experts; in the UK the AAIB.
Aircrew and other professionals in the industry are not above common law, however much they might like to think otherwise.
Fred737 wrote
I was disappointed to read that after the LHR 777 crash landing last month Balpa accompanied (and therefore approved of) the crew being interviewed by the Police and the AAIB. If the AAIB were trying to find out the cause of the accident (their job) what were the Police doing?
The reason the UK is one of the leading exponents of accident prevention and investigation is because of the 'just culture' it has (it used to be called a 'blameless culture', but that has changed). For a 'just culture' to exist, a thorough investigation must be carried out.
It might not be pleasant having the police interview the crew, but if you have nothing to hide, they will very quickly fade into the background as in your example. The most opportune time for such interviews is in the immediate aftermath of the incident... that is when memories are most fresh and, like it or not, when the exact state of those involved can be assessed.
Having the police involved at that early stage very quickly put paid to any chance of some idiot of a reporter or 'eye witness' from claiming that the crew were to blame because they were hungover etc.
Having the police involved from the outset will actually serve to protect the crew. I'm no great fan of the police, some of their policing policy is IMHO wrong, but by doing what they did, they stopped the crew from possibly being unduly scrutinised by the gutter press.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and Gentlemen
I am a pilot (was actually - I am 74) and I would like to suggest that the criminalisation of pilots would in the right circumstances improve safety. The vital four words are of course ‘in the right circumstances’.
I spent over 25 years flying where everything I did and said was recorded. Indeed, as it happens, this included six weeks flying a Merpati CN-235 in Indonesia – note the cockpit video cameras – as shown in the picture below.
My point is that full recording of everything actually works in the pilot’s favour because it enables you to prove after the event that you were not negligent. Or if you prefer makes it impossible for anybody even to suggest negligence unless it actually existed.
If you make a mistake or show a lack of skill the recordings enable you to show the full reasons and circumstances for your error and so actually guard against an oversimplified judgement of ‘pilot error’.
Full recording would be easy to arrange these days so if pilots argue against it then they are loosing the opportunity to produce evidence that shows how professional they are as they go about their job.
Of course the reckless or incompetent aircrew would not have a leg to stand on – but you are not in either of those categories so why not demand full recording and the right to be able to prove you did a good job?
JF
I am a pilot (was actually - I am 74) and I would like to suggest that the criminalisation of pilots would in the right circumstances improve safety. The vital four words are of course ‘in the right circumstances’.
I spent over 25 years flying where everything I did and said was recorded. Indeed, as it happens, this included six weeks flying a Merpati CN-235 in Indonesia – note the cockpit video cameras – as shown in the picture below.
My point is that full recording of everything actually works in the pilot’s favour because it enables you to prove after the event that you were not negligent. Or if you prefer makes it impossible for anybody even to suggest negligence unless it actually existed.
If you make a mistake or show a lack of skill the recordings enable you to show the full reasons and circumstances for your error and so actually guard against an oversimplified judgement of ‘pilot error’.
Full recording would be easy to arrange these days so if pilots argue against it then they are loosing the opportunity to produce evidence that shows how professional they are as they go about their job.
Of course the reckless or incompetent aircrew would not have a leg to stand on – but you are not in either of those categories so why not demand full recording and the right to be able to prove you did a good job?
JF
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of being mercilessly flamed...
IMHO, in a truly "just culture", a pilot who contributed to an accident through willful negligence would accept his/her part of responsibility, apologize, and accept whatever punishment was deemed appropriate by whoever was given the mandate to decide such a thing. Likewise, the management of the airline, the ground crew, the manufacturer of the aircraft, the controllers, etc.
A "just culture" means justice for all... honest mistakes are not treated as criminal actions, mistakes are admitted honestly, punishment is meted out when deserved, and accepted.
Unfortunately, we live in a far from ideal world. Fundamentally, everyone, with some exceptions I admit, wants to get away with as mush as they can without getting caught, and failing that, with as few consequences as can be managed.
Just my humble opinion.
IMHO, in a truly "just culture", a pilot who contributed to an accident through willful negligence would accept his/her part of responsibility, apologize, and accept whatever punishment was deemed appropriate by whoever was given the mandate to decide such a thing. Likewise, the management of the airline, the ground crew, the manufacturer of the aircraft, the controllers, etc.
A "just culture" means justice for all... honest mistakes are not treated as criminal actions, mistakes are admitted honestly, punishment is meted out when deserved, and accepted.
Unfortunately, we live in a far from ideal world. Fundamentally, everyone, with some exceptions I admit, wants to get away with as mush as they can without getting caught, and failing that, with as few consequences as can be managed.
Just my humble opinion.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negligence
As SLF who has an interest in aviation might I add my pennies worth.
Negligence in the medical field is roughly define as " actions which the majority of professional peers would agree were unsatisfactory"
If a significant body of fellow practitioners would have acted in the same way confronted with the same circumstances a practitioner will not be found to be negligent.
I get the feeling that the majority of you consider the pilots actions in this case unsatisfactory.
nhs
Negligence in the medical field is roughly define as " actions which the majority of professional peers would agree were unsatisfactory"
If a significant body of fellow practitioners would have acted in the same way confronted with the same circumstances a practitioner will not be found to be negligent.
I get the feeling that the majority of you consider the pilots actions in this case unsatisfactory.
nhs
Last edited by nhs; 8th Feb 2008 at 13:57. Reason: error
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: usa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Farley-
Thanks for the post. A concern with video recording, etc.. is if the pilot dies and cannot explain his actions. As with any cockpit recording...must there be protections?
IFALPA has an article on crminalization in iys recent newsletter. fyi.
http://www.ifalpa.org/if_news/IFALPANews08NWS08_Feb.pdf
Thanks for the post. A concern with video recording, etc.. is if the pilot dies and cannot explain his actions. As with any cockpit recording...must there be protections?
IFALPA has an article on crminalization in iys recent newsletter. fyi.
http://www.ifalpa.org/if_news/IFALPANews08NWS08_Feb.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NeverLand
Age: 24
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubick101,
unfortunately I do find your comments childish as you have written, as a part of a sentence, the next:
the text above is a copy paste of your original post and I understand you may have wanted to give it a broader sense. However that is what you have written. And even reading the full sentence its meaning and intention do not change.
Well, that's why accidents are called accidents.
Definition: An accident is a specific, identifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external event which occurs in a particular time and place, without apparent cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative probabilistic outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.
Definition: A ‘mistake' is an error caused by a fault: the fault being misjudgment, carelessness, or forgetfulness.
In short, whilst operating an aircraft there may be signs of an accident waiting to happen and if not seen before one could argue that somebody has made a mistake (by either one of the above faults).
Now If somebody was actually wanting and acting for the accident to happen it wouldn't have been an accident but a sabotage, act of suicide, murder, or any other and depending on the carachter at play. I do not believe this was the case and so the investigation should reveal.
What, as said before, worries me is the fact that when people misjudge or forget (which happens to all of us as we're just human) could be taken to trial as they'd be taken to trial for being human; no more, no less. Carelessness falls, IMHO in a different category.
I was driving through the red light when I hit and killed the child but it was a mistake. I didn't intend to kill her and I want you to let me go because it was actually a mistake, no matter what the photographic evidence shows
Actually a very good example indeed. What if a wasp had come in the car, stung you and you loss control of the car, driving through the red light? Or if you had a stroke and couldn't control yourself, let alone the car? Or if you didn't see the red light due to a distraction? or there was a malfunction in the traffic light system? or, or...
you see, it's not just black or white: there's that many greys. A friend of mine works as support staff for the York police department and she is appalled of seeing so many cases when middle class, hard working, well respected citizens involve themselves in ACCIDENTS and end up in jail because there was loss of life. What good does that make? You get a regular John with bad luck ending up surrounded by real criminals and having to adapt to that environment for years...great service to society we're doing by turning a working guy into another convict.
A.
unfortunately I do find your comments childish as you have written, as a part of a sentence, the next:
if a uniformly harsh and critical approach to criminal negligence was adopted universally, flying would ultimately be a safer industry
So, most accidents are mistakes are they? We have now reduced the discussion to a banal and childish argument.
Definition: An accident is a specific, identifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external event which occurs in a particular time and place, without apparent cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative probabilistic outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.
Definition: A ‘mistake' is an error caused by a fault: the fault being misjudgment, carelessness, or forgetfulness.
In short, whilst operating an aircraft there may be signs of an accident waiting to happen and if not seen before one could argue that somebody has made a mistake (by either one of the above faults).
Now If somebody was actually wanting and acting for the accident to happen it wouldn't have been an accident but a sabotage, act of suicide, murder, or any other and depending on the carachter at play. I do not believe this was the case and so the investigation should reveal.
What, as said before, worries me is the fact that when people misjudge or forget (which happens to all of us as we're just human) could be taken to trial as they'd be taken to trial for being human; no more, no less. Carelessness falls, IMHO in a different category.
I was driving through the red light when I hit and killed the child but it was a mistake. I didn't intend to kill her and I want you to let me go because it was actually a mistake, no matter what the photographic evidence shows
you see, it's not just black or white: there's that many greys. A friend of mine works as support staff for the York police department and she is appalled of seeing so many cases when middle class, hard working, well respected citizens involve themselves in ACCIDENTS and end up in jail because there was loss of life. What good does that make? You get a regular John with bad luck ending up surrounded by real criminals and having to adapt to that environment for years...great service to society we're doing by turning a working guy into another convict.
A.