Canadian Pilot charged with Criminal Negligence in crash
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for you pilots/legal experts:
What would happen if Capt. Piche had NOT safely landed the Atlantic Glider? Say they ditched resulting in death or injuries and Piche survived. Would he be guilty of criminal negligence?
(Under s. 219 of the Criminal Code of Canada, (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.)
What would happen if Capt. Piche had NOT safely landed the Atlantic Glider? Say they ditched resulting in death or injuries and Piche survived. Would he be guilty of criminal negligence?
(Under s. 219 of the Criminal Code of Canada, (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't think so, rotornut, because there was a technical fault(fractured fuel pipe) which was beyond his control.
In addition IIRC, the Airboos software was a bit vague (at the time) regarding this fault, so the good Captain was left high and dry....literally.
What they needed was a Flight Engineer, who kept track of the fuel ahh....slightly more closely.
A legal expert however might view this slightly differently.
In addition IIRC, the Airboos software was a bit vague (at the time) regarding this fault, so the good Captain was left high and dry....literally.
What they needed was a Flight Engineer, who kept track of the fuel ahh....slightly more closely.
A legal expert however might view this slightly differently.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotornut;
An interesting question, but one we can't answer - that's what a proper trial is for.
Sunfish;
I find your statement odd - you say you can't legislate safety, but why do we have governing bodies in all our countries issuing crew licences, operators' certificates, and auditing them all the time?
Also, you say "The cost of charging people with offences outside their immediate, direct and knowledgable control will simply be met by the public in the form of higher insurance costs,...", but insurance doesn't cover criminal acts.
An interesting question, but one we can't answer - that's what a proper trial is for.
Sunfish;
I find your statement odd - you say you can't legislate safety, but why do we have governing bodies in all our countries issuing crew licences, operators' certificates, and auditing them all the time?
Also, you say "The cost of charging people with offences outside their immediate, direct and knowledgable control will simply be met by the public in the form of higher insurance costs,...", but insurance doesn't cover criminal acts.
Last edited by lead zeppelin; 24th Oct 2004 at 17:02.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A - Good point.
My feeling is that if he went for a jury trial, he would never be convicted in Canada, despite any degree of fault on his part. That's because he's a bit of a hero now in Canada in spite of the recent report.
My feeling is that if he went for a jury trial, he would never be convicted in Canada, despite any degree of fault on his part. That's because he's a bit of a hero now in Canada in spite of the recent report.
Zep, I say that you cannot legislate safety because you can minimise, but not entirely remove, risk through legislation.
The trouble is that legislators, in their attempts to get re-elected, are sometimes tempted to try and eliminate this last unavoidable risk by blaming the pilot.
This is in the sense of "You crashed, therefore you must have done something wrong, since doing something wrong is illegal, you have committed a criminal or civil offence".
My second point is that if such a logical fallacy is enshrined in law, then pilots and airlines will compensate for this percieved risk of litigation usually through increased charges.
The classic case is Obstetricians, at least in the U.S. and Australia, who are now in short supply because of the astronomical insurance premiums they must pay.
As I understand it, part of the reason for talking about human error instead of pilot error, is to emphasize the fact that there are some types of errors that pilots (being humans?) cannot avoid.
The trouble is that legislators, in their attempts to get re-elected, are sometimes tempted to try and eliminate this last unavoidable risk by blaming the pilot.
This is in the sense of "You crashed, therefore you must have done something wrong, since doing something wrong is illegal, you have committed a criminal or civil offence".
My second point is that if such a logical fallacy is enshrined in law, then pilots and airlines will compensate for this percieved risk of litigation usually through increased charges.
The classic case is Obstetricians, at least in the U.S. and Australia, who are now in short supply because of the astronomical insurance premiums they must pay.
As I understand it, part of the reason for talking about human error instead of pilot error, is to emphasize the fact that there are some types of errors that pilots (being humans?) cannot avoid.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish;
I see what you are trying to say, and I do agree sometimes legislators have ulterior political motives ('google' Attorney General of New York Eliot Spitzer). Unfortunately, without some legislation public interest is not served. But, there will always be risk in whatever you do - legislation is just one means to control/reduce it.
The issue here is "intent', as has been mentioned earlier in this thread. A human error occurs and there was no intent, this is an accident.
If there was an act committed where the crew knew is was dangerous, and continued with the action then this is criminal.
I see what you are trying to say, and I do agree sometimes legislators have ulterior political motives ('google' Attorney General of New York Eliot Spitzer). Unfortunately, without some legislation public interest is not served. But, there will always be risk in whatever you do - legislation is just one means to control/reduce it.
The issue here is "intent', as has been mentioned earlier in this thread. A human error occurs and there was no intent, this is an accident.
If there was an act committed where the crew knew is was dangerous, and continued with the action then this is criminal.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
While I can see what you are saying, I don't think its as simple as you crashed therefore you must have done something wrong.
As far as the UK is concerned,, then there would have to be more evidence than a 'crash for no reason' to justify a conviction. Most UK legislation would cover anyone, not just aircrew. For example Endangering the safety of an aircraft, is an offence that can be committed by any doing something, or ommitting to do something which led to an aircraft being put in danger.
The test is not one of human error, its a test related to what an avarge, or reasonable person having that qualification would or should have done.
That test would apply to every occupation or activity, aircrew are not being singled out for any underhand treatment.
While I can see what you are saying, I don't think its as simple as you crashed therefore you must have done something wrong.
As far as the UK is concerned,, then there would have to be more evidence than a 'crash for no reason' to justify a conviction. Most UK legislation would cover anyone, not just aircrew. For example Endangering the safety of an aircraft, is an offence that can be committed by any doing something, or ommitting to do something which led to an aircraft being put in danger.
The test is not one of human error, its a test related to what an avarge, or reasonable person having that qualification would or should have done.
That test would apply to every occupation or activity, aircrew are not being singled out for any underhand treatment.
Rotornut, your question may yet be answered as I believe that there are lawsuits pending on behalf of some of the passengers on the AT flight. You know, compensation for the mental stress and trauma of the experience etc. (and I am not suggesting that it was not a terrifying experience for many of those on board.)
I expect that there will be a case made that the technical causes of the incident not with standing, the outcome should have been at worst, an engine out diversion and landing. In fact is this point not raised in the report from the official investigation?
Perhaps we will see how a court looks on such a claim.
I expect that there will be a case made that the technical causes of the incident not with standing, the outcome should have been at worst, an engine out diversion and landing. In fact is this point not raised in the report from the official investigation?
Perhaps we will see how a court looks on such a claim.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Innuendo, the lawsuit filed by the Air Transat pax is a civil action.
Rotornut's question was whether Captain Piche would have charged with Criminal Negligence - which would be a criminal matter, not civil.
Rotornut's question was whether Captain Piche would have charged with Criminal Negligence - which would be a criminal matter, not civil.
Thank you Zep, shows my lack of knowledge on the differences between criminal and civil actions. Perhaps this is an unfair speculative question, but can you tell me, if the plaintiffs win a case based on a claim that the fuel starvation could have been avoided by the crew, does that then establish it as fact?
I ask this because I suspect that this argument will be made in the lawsuits.
I ask this because I suspect that this argument will be made in the lawsuits.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
innuendo
I have to presume that Canada and the UK work to the same levels of proof in Civil and Criminal cases, if thats is so, then in a Civil claim (ie not a criminal action, but one made for compensation) the standard of proof required ins 'On the Balance of Porbability'. In a Criminal trial the standard would be beyond reasonable doubt.
So the answer is Probably.
I have to presume that Canada and the UK work to the same levels of proof in Civil and Criminal cases, if thats is so, then in a Civil claim (ie not a criminal action, but one made for compensation) the standard of proof required ins 'On the Balance of Porbability'. In a Criminal trial the standard would be beyond reasonable doubt.
So the answer is Probably.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just pilots . . .
A few years ago there was a train crash at Purley, south of London. It was caused by a driver passing a signal at danger, and resulted in the deaths of several passengers.
The signal in question was poorly sited and had a long history of being passed at danger. Management knew this, but had not taken any corrective action - such as moving it or installing a repeater signal. The driver relied only on his lookout and an ‘automatic warning system’ whose deficiencies were so well known that his own management had rejected it as being inadequate some 20 years previously. In spite of this, the driver was convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison.
Did he screw up? Yes.
Was he simply the last link in a long error chain? Absolutely.
Should he have carried the can for an inadequate signalling system? No.
If one contrasted our record of prosecuting blokes at the sharp end with the history of corporate manslaughter, one might conclude that English law is very effective at nailing individuals who make tragic mistakes, whereas their employers – who set the traps into which they fall – generally walk away scot-free. Unfair, unjust, but ‘twas ever so.
The signal in question was poorly sited and had a long history of being passed at danger. Management knew this, but had not taken any corrective action - such as moving it or installing a repeater signal. The driver relied only on his lookout and an ‘automatic warning system’ whose deficiencies were so well known that his own management had rejected it as being inadequate some 20 years previously. In spite of this, the driver was convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison.
Did he screw up? Yes.
Was he simply the last link in a long error chain? Absolutely.
Should he have carried the can for an inadequate signalling system? No.
If one contrasted our record of prosecuting blokes at the sharp end with the history of corporate manslaughter, one might conclude that English law is very effective at nailing individuals who make tragic mistakes, whereas their employers – who set the traps into which they fall – generally walk away scot-free. Unfair, unjust, but ‘twas ever so.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good question, Innuendo. In most civil suits, a settlement is reached 'out of court' by the insurance companies, the details of which are not disclosed. I can't recall off the top of my head any civil verdicts being used as evidence in a criminal trial, but I'll poke around.......
On a tangent here, one prominent example is good old OJ Simpson. This 'circus' had so many twists it's not really relevant in my opinion, but it is one example of civil and criminal cases with different outcomes.
On a tangent here, one prominent example is good old OJ Simpson. This 'circus' had so many twists it's not really relevant in my opinion, but it is one example of civil and criminal cases with different outcomes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Canadians! Gotta love ya........
These backwoods operations in your frozen tundra have always operated like cowboys in the wild west. It is no surprise that these careless accidents happen in Canada on a daily basis due to the lax regulatory environment, but it is surprising that this particular accident should involve the police.
Something's amiss here, chaps!
These backwoods operations in your frozen tundra have always operated like cowboys in the wild west. It is no surprise that these careless accidents happen in Canada on a daily basis due to the lax regulatory environment, but it is surprising that this particular accident should involve the police.
Something's amiss here, chaps!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, criminal penalties for "pilot error" should not be sanctioned.
This is not a simple case of "pilot error". There enough evidence to convince the courts to proceed with the trial.
The burden on the court is to establish if the pilot knowingly operated the aircraft in a dangerous configuration.
If it is shown that he was aware of the operating regulations and knowingly operated the aircraft in spite of not conforming, he is probable guilty of negligence causing the death of one of the passengers.
He may even be liable for damage to the airplane and anything else he smashed with it.
This is not a campaign to litigate against "pilot error". Pilot error accidents are typically not the result of gross negligence or intentional rule breaking, but if they are, they litigation should be pursued.
This will make the industry safer and better. If you are a responsible pilot you really don't have to worry about it.
By the way, why don't some of you consider the family of people who are killed and injured by the negligent actions of pilots? What exactly are they supposed to do if they pilots are immune from prosecution?
This is not a simple case of "pilot error". There enough evidence to convince the courts to proceed with the trial.
The burden on the court is to establish if the pilot knowingly operated the aircraft in a dangerous configuration.
If it is shown that he was aware of the operating regulations and knowingly operated the aircraft in spite of not conforming, he is probable guilty of negligence causing the death of one of the passengers.
He may even be liable for damage to the airplane and anything else he smashed with it.
This is not a campaign to litigate against "pilot error". Pilot error accidents are typically not the result of gross negligence or intentional rule breaking, but if they are, they litigation should be pursued.
This will make the industry safer and better. If you are a responsible pilot you really don't have to worry about it.
By the way, why don't some of you consider the family of people who are killed and injured by the negligent actions of pilots? What exactly are they supposed to do if they pilots are immune from prosecution?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,159
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Quite agree! Of all the unforgiveable things in Aviation, running out of fuel in flight without a good excuse has got to be one of them, particularly in a helicopter.
Phil
Phil
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the link to TC's website dealing with enforcement.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Re...ment/About.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Actions
Upon completion of an investigation the RMAE will review the case to determine the appropriate deterrent action to impose if the evidence indicates that an individual has contravened a provision of the Aeronautics Act or the CARs. This decision may significantly affect the individuals attitude towards aviation safety and voluntary compliance in the future.
The RMAE will decide whether to proceed administratively or judicially. Judicial action involves the prosecution of the alleged offender in the criminal courts and is only applicable to a few of the provisions of the Aeronautics Act and the CARs. Administrative action comprises all other measures taken by the Minister pursuant to the provisions of the Aeronautics Act, and includes oral counseling, the suspension of documents and the assessment of monetary penalties.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Re...ment/About.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement Actions
Upon completion of an investigation the RMAE will review the case to determine the appropriate deterrent action to impose if the evidence indicates that an individual has contravened a provision of the Aeronautics Act or the CARs. This decision may significantly affect the individuals attitude towards aviation safety and voluntary compliance in the future.
The RMAE will decide whether to proceed administratively or judicially. Judicial action involves the prosecution of the alleged offender in the criminal courts and is only applicable to a few of the provisions of the Aeronautics Act and the CARs. Administrative action comprises all other measures taken by the Minister pursuant to the provisions of the Aeronautics Act, and includes oral counseling, the suspension of documents and the assessment of monetary penalties.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: CYAM
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact remains that the pilot willfully obeyed the CARs in operating the a/c single pilot IFR without an autopilot. Furthermore, the pilot only went as far as to mentally calculate how much fuel would be required, thus violating the funamental CAR that says 'thou shalt not take off unless you have enough fuel to get to your destination, miss, get to your alternate, plus 30 minutes'.
Now if I disobey an equally fundamental highway law and kill someone while I'm speeding, I may also be charged as a criminal... so what's the diff?
Cheers!
Now if I disobey an equally fundamental highway law and kill someone while I'm speeding, I may also be charged as a criminal... so what's the diff?
Cheers!
