The November 2007 Crash Of Atlas Jet Md83
 

"A plane not flight worthy due to technical problems was allowed to take off and, as a consequence, a deadly plane crash took place, killing all 57 people on board,” was an allegation made by one of the attorneys during the criminal trial currently in progress in Isparta, Turkey as reported by the Turkish press:
Officials face 15 years? imprisonment over plane crash

Whilst we have been discussing under another thread, the Concorde criminal trial, another criminal trial involving many similar issues is also in progress in Turkey.

The criminalisation of air accident is no longer a trend, it is now a well established process which must be well heeded by all those concerned in the field of air transport.

I wonder what will ensue after the publication of the final investigation report on the THY Schipol B737 crash.

Based on the very limited info in the link I see some significant differences. The improperly maintained CVR & FDR can't be the true cause of the crash (potentially a system of a bigger set of problems). The article mentions this quote...

“Maybe instruments that had lost their precision transmitted the wrong information to the pilot, directing him to a point outside the runway,”

Clearly a statement with no standing in any court. I'd hope charges were based on some more complete understanding of what happened or on data compiled via other records.

My thoughts on the other thread point to a more callous disregard for prudent and reasonable SOP's readily evident to an "ordinary" 3rd party observer. At the end of the day (out side of all the potential other issues) to the old line about the guy meeting a doc at a party. Doc...if I move my arm this way...well don't move your arm that way.

No different then... it's a great plane but if a tire fails due to FOD its more then likely to damage the plane badly enough that it might crash....well then, don't let it hit anything laying on the runway.

Accident report link please.

Atlasjet saga continues
 

World Focus Airlines (now defunct, or rebranded as Ank Air apparently) was performing ACMI for AtlasJet on this sector/route.

Crew were fatigued, aircraft did have some tech issues, and EGPWS did not ostensibly function to prevent the CFIT accident. I also recall that the aircraft impacted an upper mountain plateau/slope with a very flat trajectory.

The EU had not designated either carrier on their Blacklist.

Air safety as an issue seems to have taken second stage to the blame game in Turkey with a criminal case. Criminal cases tend not to improve air safety.

However, it remains an issue in Chicago as a case has been filed there on behalf of the cabin crew and passengers. The Chicago case is against MDC/Boeing and Honeywell (EGPWS), and the Court just affirmed that they would not throw the case out and back to Turkey (inspite of the MDC/Boeing/Honeywell wanting them to do that, presumably because Turkish law pays less for deaths than US law).

Watch this space for more news.....

accident report
 

PUNKALOUVER requests the official accident investigation report. This was published by the Turkish Authorities back in November 2008. I did read it at the time but have not retained a copy.
The factors are well and concisely set out in esenuslu`s post No. 294 of 29/11/2008. An additional contributory factor cited in the report was the "Black Hole Effect/Somatogravic Illusion " which disoraintated the flight crew in making the approach. The report concluded for cause as pilot error, but given the current criminal trial esenuslu`s comments that real blame must lie with the authorities will be the final outcome
The civil action against Boeing, Macdonnel Douglas and Honeywell for hearing in April 2010 in Chicago Cook County Circuit Court is merely for monetary damages in compensation for loss to the victims next of kin and dependants. The vindication of the pilots is in the hands of the judges sitting at Isparta Court, in Turkey.

Hi,

Just trying to understand ...
Indeed .. improvement of safety can be made after the results and the recommandations of the investigators and other legal civil aviation offices and not by a trial of the parties involved.

The trials came usually very long time after those investigations results and recommandations.
The trial is there for punish any who (human .. or corporate ..etc ..) can be the culprit of the accident.
In any case the trial don't have such duty to improve safety.
So the two parts ... investigations and recommandations ... and trial are absolute necessity but are not complementary IMHO.
BTW .. you can't go free if you kill people .. it's immoral.

If I bend an airframe and a criminal investigation is likely I will claim the 5th and demand a lawyer. You will never know for sure what factors preceded the accident and, as sure as night follows day, it will happen again.

If on the other hand a no blame investigation wants to prevent a re-occurrence I would naturally be open and honest, even if it shows me to be stupid.

Only lawyers stand to benefit from criminal trials.

Hi,

I stand on my position:
you can't go free if you kill people .. it's immoral

But permitted in some societies :(

Sir George Cayley

Only lawyers stand to benefit from criminal trials
 

I beg to disagaree with this statement.
Just allow yourself a moment of thought to contemplate what your sentiments would be should you have the greatest of all misfortune ...loss of the dearest and most cherished or loved person in your life. Once the initial grief and pain of your loss subsides it will be replaced with a welling anger towards those reponsible. There is only one remedy which may be offered to those who have to endure such pain. That is the Justice that a criminal trial will mete out to those responsible and not a civil action for monetary restitution, where lawyers do in a large number of cases take the risk of reward under the contingent fee basis.
In criminal prosecutions lawyers do not benefit, it is the public interest that benefits. It is the ultimate deterrent for all to ensure that in conducting their aviation businesses they place greater value on human life over commercial gain, and advantage.

tkazaz,

There should only be criminal trials for criminal actions, an act that was done knowing it was criminal and with intent to commit a criminal act.

The vast majority of aviation crashes (I refuse to call them accidents) do not fall into that category. There may well have been negligence in the operation of the aircraft but that is not enough.

There are limited examples though where criminal action is warranted. The Garuda 737 crash a few years ago is a good example.

incidentally, the pain of the survivors has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution. A crime against the person is held to be a crime against the state and that is why it is the state who prosecutes, not the individual.

I suggest those with a mind to prosecute take the time to read "Just Culture" by Sidney Dekker (apparently Capt Sullenberger had it in his bag when he went surfing). A court is only interested in having one version of what happened, this has very little to do with establishing the truth of what happened, or how it could be prevented.

Aviation has moved a huge distance in reducing human factors accidents by fostering an open reporting culture, moving in the other direction now would be a terrible mistake. Anyone who thinks the Concorde trial is about establishing the "truth" of the events of that day is sadly mistaken.

A final couple of small points, most families of victims go to court not to get compensation or "justice", but usually when they have been stonewalled and they feel it is the only way to bring out the truth. Sadly that is rarely the result and many end up disillusioned with the whole process.

This is not to say there should not be a line beyond which actions should be justified in court, but as Mr Dekker says, it is not where the line is - but who gets to draw it!

Was this report in english or Turkish? I remember a link to a turkish report.

response to punkalouver
 

The report was published in Turkish and as I can recall covered some 360 pages or more. If anyone can find it I will do my best to translate, given its length, the more important parts or any parts specified at the request of readers of this forum.