Are the Pilots responsible for the contents of a passenger's suitcase ?
Air Regs & Criminal Liability
PIC following air regs to the letter can still get nailed according to criminal law of whatever country he's in.
Slightly off topic, but a Canadian teacher was just acquitted on appeal from a conviction for sexual assault of a minor in Indonesia by a judge who declared that the defendants used "magic stones" to have their way with the alleged victims.
Slightly off topic, but a Canadian teacher was just acquitted on appeal from a conviction for sexual assault of a minor in Indonesia by a judge who declared that the defendants used "magic stones" to have their way with the alleged victims.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Magic stone" in that case was brought up not by the judge, but by one of the alleged victims who was 6-years old at the time. The police presumed the "magic stone" was some sort of a sleeping pill or drug given to the child in order to make him compliant during the alleged assault. Kudos to the appeals court for throwing out the conviction.
A better example for foreign pilots might be the Gol 1907 mid-air collision with an Embraer Legacy in Brazil. The Legacy pilots (both American citizens) were arrested, charged and convicted for their role in the collision, even though they operated the plane exactly per Brazilian ATC instructions.
That conviction was unfortunately upheld on appeal, although the pilots were allowed to return to the US.
A better example for foreign pilots might be the Gol 1907 mid-air collision with an Embraer Legacy in Brazil. The Legacy pilots (both American citizens) were arrested, charged and convicted for their role in the collision, even though they operated the plane exactly per Brazilian ATC instructions.
That conviction was unfortunately upheld on appeal, although the pilots were allowed to return to the US.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Af fairly regular SLF, we are asked "has anyone had acess to your suit cases, and did you pack them yourself.
What is the point of this, If my case was packed by someone else, who may or not be a drug smuggler, I am certainly not going to say that at that point.
What is the point of this, If my case was packed by someone else, who may or not be a drug smuggler, I am certainly not going to say that at that point.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airline is responsible, and the Captain represents the airline
The PIC is responsible for "the safe conduct of the flight", including all its phases. The airline is responsible towards all authorities for adherence to applicable rules and legislation, and needs to demonstrate that there are adequate processes in place to ensure full compliance. For procedures (or lack thereof) that reach beyond the scope of a single flight, it is the postholders of an airline (CEO, head of Flight Ops, Maintenance, etc.) who are criminally responsible.
In a commercial operation security screening (and passenger declaration) is in place to ensure there are no items posing a threat to flight safety in checked baggage. Unless actually aware of a breach, the PIC may reasonably assume that the procedures are working - just like you may reasonably assume a load-sheet or wx report is accurate if supplied by flight ops. You will only be accountable if you knowingly operate a flight with an unsafe condition (which obviously was not the case with Pan Am). The case against the Embraer pilots in Brazil hinged on them switching off TCAS, thus KNOWINGLY creating an unsafe condition which directly contributed to the accident. Of course whether intentionally or not may be argued, but the fact remains they did.
With private operations the PIC is directly responsible for everything. Again, in a criminal case any act must be either willful and knowing to be prosecutable, or be a direct result of gross negligence (i.e. lack of customary and expectable attention and oversight). I would say if crossing the Atlantic 3x with 20+ suitcases and one only passenger, with Dominica as the departure point, it is a rather weak defence that they had no clue...
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally speaking, in most systems, pilot is responsible if he acts with "mens rea" - "guilty mind". That is, basically, if he is aware that he's doing something wrong, or he exercises "willful blindness" by intentionally putting himself in a position where he would be unaware of anything illegal being on board the plane.
Specific bounds of "willful blindness" are somewhat imprecise but it's usually enough to exercise normal standard of care. E.g. a pilot on a scheduled flight is off the hook if he is aware of standard protocols (all passengers and luggage being screened by customs officials before they get on the plane) and nothing hinky is happening. On the other hand, if you're flying a small plane and you have no reason to think that your passengers' bags were properly screened, you have to check for yourself or you may be held culpable.
In some criminal law systems there is a category of crimes that don't require mens rea, that's called "strict liability". This is a much lower bar. For example, you can be found guilty of speeding even if you had no intention to speed and you did not know that you were speeding. All that matters is the fact that you were. However, strict liability is rarely (if ever) used for drug crimes.
Specific bounds of "willful blindness" are somewhat imprecise but it's usually enough to exercise normal standard of care. E.g. a pilot on a scheduled flight is off the hook if he is aware of standard protocols (all passengers and luggage being screened by customs officials before they get on the plane) and nothing hinky is happening. On the other hand, if you're flying a small plane and you have no reason to think that your passengers' bags were properly screened, you have to check for yourself or you may be held culpable.
In some criminal law systems there is a category of crimes that don't require mens rea, that's called "strict liability". This is a much lower bar. For example, you can be found guilty of speeding even if you had no intention to speed and you did not know that you were speeding. All that matters is the fact that you were. However, strict liability is rarely (if ever) used for drug crimes.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a television interview the arrested broker (fixer) admitted he suspected that the "pax" was smuggling , but he was told the pax was a gold merchant ,transporting "pieces of gold ",the fact that he dressed up as a pilot to appear a member of the crew did not help the 2 real pilots . The Doninican prosecutor,also interviewed said that they normally do not hold pilots of commercial planes in similar cases , but this was not a normal commercial flight and all 4 arrested knew what they were doing .
So this was the base of his prosecution.
It would seem from a French custom official also interviewed I this program that everyone knew about the nature this flight and their arrest was planned, if not in PUJ at their arrival in France .
So this was the base of his prosecution.
It would seem from a French custom official also interviewed I this program that everyone knew about the nature this flight and their arrest was planned, if not in PUJ at their arrival in France .
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that it really matters, but what was the flight plan? I would imagine that a Falcon 50 doesn't have quite the legs to make it to France nonstop (even though the cargo may have well allowed the pilots to go the distance without relief 
).
).
