Canadian Pilot charged with Criminal Negligence in crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian Pilot charged with Criminal Negligence in crash
Pilot charged in city plane crash
WINNIPEG - Winnipeg Police have laid charges against the pilot of a plane that crashed at Logan Avenue and McPhillips Street Winnipeg in June 2002.
The Piper Navajo Chieftan aircraft, owned by Keystone Air, was carrying six passengers and the pilot. It collided with several vehicles before coming to a stop in the middle of the street.
All of the passengers survived the crash with varying injuries, but one man, Chester Jones, died a few months after the accident as a result of his injuries.
After a lengthy investigation in co-operation with Transport Canada, police have charged the pilot – a 36-year-old Calgary man – with criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous operation of an aircraft.
In April 2003, the Transportation Safety Board released a report on the accident saying the pilot was flying too high and too fast to make a successful landing at the Winnipeg Airport, and when he tried to go around for another approach, both of the plane's engines stopped because they ran out of fuel.
The report also says the pilot didn't tell air traffic controllers about his critical situation soon enough, and the aircraft did not meet regulations for the flight because it did not have an autopilot system.
The pilot will appear in court in Winnipeg later this year.
WINNIPEG - Winnipeg Police have laid charges against the pilot of a plane that crashed at Logan Avenue and McPhillips Street Winnipeg in June 2002.
The Piper Navajo Chieftan aircraft, owned by Keystone Air, was carrying six passengers and the pilot. It collided with several vehicles before coming to a stop in the middle of the street.
All of the passengers survived the crash with varying injuries, but one man, Chester Jones, died a few months after the accident as a result of his injuries.
After a lengthy investigation in co-operation with Transport Canada, police have charged the pilot – a 36-year-old Calgary man – with criminal negligence causing death, four counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and dangerous operation of an aircraft.
In April 2003, the Transportation Safety Board released a report on the accident saying the pilot was flying too high and too fast to make a successful landing at the Winnipeg Airport, and when he tried to go around for another approach, both of the plane's engines stopped because they ran out of fuel.
The report also says the pilot didn't tell air traffic controllers about his critical situation soon enough, and the aircraft did not meet regulations for the flight because it did not have an autopilot system.
The pilot will appear in court in Winnipeg later this year.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadzepplin,
Could you possibly post the source of this article and the date it was published?
Criminal charges against pilots that make mistakes are extremely dangerous to professional airmen. I know there have been problems with this sort of thing before, particularly in Asian countries but I would never have expected it in Canada.
I'm trying to get legal help for the pilot so that we can avoid legal precedent should he be convicted. Any information you can give me as to the source and date of the story or the venue for the pending trial would be most helpful.
I'll check back to get the info.
Thank you.
Could you possibly post the source of this article and the date it was published?
Criminal charges against pilots that make mistakes are extremely dangerous to professional airmen. I know there have been problems with this sort of thing before, particularly in Asian countries but I would never have expected it in Canada.
I'm trying to get legal help for the pilot so that we can avoid legal precedent should he be convicted. Any information you can give me as to the source and date of the story or the venue for the pending trial would be most helpful.
I'll check back to get the info.
Thank you.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Well, this is cheaper than a Personal Title!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry? What "legal precedent" would that be, then? The one that says you have to answer for it when you f**k up? Everyone faces that, and the court will decide whether he is, in fact, culpable. Presumably, after this length of time, Transport Canada is not bringing the action just for the hell of it.
Welcome to the real world!
Welcome to the real world!
fokker,
"...answering for it..." is covered by civil penalties ( revocation of license, civil suits by next of kin, etc. ). Criminal penalties are quite another and are the precedent that must be avoided.
Criminal penalty for pilots is an ugly monster that must be stopped when it shows its head. Once this is allowed to take hold, you'll be facing criminal charges for the incident/accident no matter the circumstances.
Government pencil monkeys ( especially the elected ones ) get a lot of personal mileage out of "getting tough" on these darned pilots. Joe Sixpack really thinks his government reps are "there for him".
Bad deal...
"...answering for it..." is covered by civil penalties ( revocation of license, civil suits by next of kin, etc. ). Criminal penalties are quite another and are the precedent that must be avoided.
Criminal penalty for pilots is an ugly monster that must be stopped when it shows its head. Once this is allowed to take hold, you'll be facing criminal charges for the incident/accident no matter the circumstances.
Government pencil monkeys ( especially the elected ones ) get a lot of personal mileage out of "getting tough" on these darned pilots. Joe Sixpack really thinks his government reps are "there for him".
Bad deal...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you are, Surplus
http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regionalnews/...d20041020.html
This news was on October 20, 2004
http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regionalnews/...d20041020.html
This news was on October 20, 2004
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: vancouver oldebloke
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironically enough the 'legal' precedents have been raised in the UK.The helicopter crash where booze was thought to have been in influence,and the tragic(pilot wise)outcome from the BA captain that continued the unstable ,early morning,Cat2 and setting of the Car alarms in the Penta Hotel??carpark..The second Cat2 was normal. It has often been wondered if the Capt,after being charged by the police,recieved adequate defense from Balpa-compared to other Industrialized nations.
It is my understanding that Air transport comes under Federal juristdiction in the US,despite local district attorneys flying of the handle with arrest warrants
I can\'t recall any US prison penalties,despite the concentrated look at \'drug\' influence..Gen the FAA cancells the LIcence(livelyhood)of the guilty indiffidual..
It is my understanding that Air transport comes under Federal juristdiction in the US,despite local district attorneys flying of the handle with arrest warrants
I can\'t recall any US prison penalties,despite the concentrated look at \'drug\' influence..Gen the FAA cancells the LIcence(livelyhood)of the guilty indiffidual..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several...
Yes, indeed, there have been oldebloke.
Northwest pilots received jail for multiple cocktails prior to operating ex- South Dakota, with w/ B727 acft.
AmWest crew facing jail time for their escapades in MIA.
Drink and be merry...go directly to jail, if a pilot, and found out.
Now then, run out of fuel ...and crash?
Seems to me to be culpable manslaughter.
Run out...at your own risk. There can really be NO excuse, except perhaps mech/tech failure/wx.
And if you don't uplift enough...well, one Brit crew (BY/Girona for example) found out, bigtime. Poorly flown approach, no diversion fuel...crash.
Northwest pilots received jail for multiple cocktails prior to operating ex- South Dakota, with w/ B727 acft.
AmWest crew facing jail time for their escapades in MIA.
Drink and be merry...go directly to jail, if a pilot, and found out.
Now then, run out of fuel ...and crash?
Seems to me to be culpable manslaughter.
Run out...at your own risk. There can really be NO excuse, except perhaps mech/tech failure/wx.
And if you don't uplift enough...well, one Brit crew (BY/Girona for example) found out, bigtime. Poorly flown approach, no diversion fuel...crash.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: vancouver oldebloke
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Led' thanks a lot for that site-the article very educational!!
411-no argument but couldn't recall any case where the crew were penalised by prison for their operation of the Aircraft which led to an accident /incident....The booze cases were 'discovered'on the ground,or after a sucessful flight.(DWI)
Led's article covered several cases of'criminal' flying but no severe consequences..
411-no argument but couldn't recall any case where the crew were penalised by prison for their operation of the Aircraft which led to an accident /incident....The booze cases were 'discovered'on the ground,or after a sucessful flight.(DWI)
Led's article covered several cases of'criminal' flying but no severe consequences..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, I've been "google"-ing around, trying to find out about another similar legal situation, but no luck.
Does anyone remember the British Midlands 737 that crashed about 15 years ago - as I recall, after an engine failure on takeoff, the crew shut down the good engine. I seem to also recall criminal charges were broght on that crew, but I'm not 100% sure.
Any insights?
Does anyone remember the British Midlands 737 that crashed about 15 years ago - as I recall, after an engine failure on takeoff, the crew shut down the good engine. I seem to also recall criminal charges were broght on that crew, but I'm not 100% sure.
Any insights?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead zepplin,
Thank you. I could not get the first link to function. Would you please try again?
The second link was informative, thanks for including it.
TO fokker and the others:
I have no problem with criminal sanction of such things as operating aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, criminal penalties for "pilot error" should not be sanctioned.
In the United States, ALPAUS has managed to preclude, in so far as I know, the filing of criminal charges at the Federal level as a consequence of aircraft accidents where pilot error is alleged or suspected. I believe that is true in most State courts as well. Police officers and District attorneys know next to nothing about aviation matters. Neither do judges or juries 99% of the time. A "fair" trial would be virtually impossible.
Perhaps the concept of a "fair trial" is lost on some nationalities but that is not a reason to subject US citizens to practices of those jurisdictions. Since we fly "abroad" it is in our interest to stop the practice of criminal indictment of errant pilots wherever possible. If we cannot avoid this in a country like Canada, what will we do if it happens in Lagos or Rydah and one suddenly finds himself subject to Islamic "law". Maybe you would like to be sentenced under Sharia to 150 lashes, spend 10 years in an Istambul dungeon or try your luck in a Rawandan prison. Would you like to be the JAL Captain who just went through hell in Tokyo because one of his flight attendants died in a clear air turbulence encounter?
If criminal indictments and sanctions cannot be precluded, there will be no cooperation whatever from pilots involved in any incident/accident, CB's on CVRs and FDRs will be routinely pulled, and accident investigation set back for years.
The subjective nature of "pilot error" detirminations also does not lend itself to criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution is applicable to deliberate acts voluntarily committed. It should not be applicable to accidents resulting from human error.
ALPAUS and IFALPA as well have actively sort to avoid the same in countries other than the USA. I support that position.
Let us hope that those of you so quick to condemn never find youselves behind bars due to an operational error that you may one day make.
Thank you. I could not get the first link to function. Would you please try again?
The second link was informative, thanks for including it.
TO fokker and the others:
I have no problem with criminal sanction of such things as operating aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, criminal penalties for "pilot error" should not be sanctioned.
In the United States, ALPAUS has managed to preclude, in so far as I know, the filing of criminal charges at the Federal level as a consequence of aircraft accidents where pilot error is alleged or suspected. I believe that is true in most State courts as well. Police officers and District attorneys know next to nothing about aviation matters. Neither do judges or juries 99% of the time. A "fair" trial would be virtually impossible.
Perhaps the concept of a "fair trial" is lost on some nationalities but that is not a reason to subject US citizens to practices of those jurisdictions. Since we fly "abroad" it is in our interest to stop the practice of criminal indictment of errant pilots wherever possible. If we cannot avoid this in a country like Canada, what will we do if it happens in Lagos or Rydah and one suddenly finds himself subject to Islamic "law". Maybe you would like to be sentenced under Sharia to 150 lashes, spend 10 years in an Istambul dungeon or try your luck in a Rawandan prison. Would you like to be the JAL Captain who just went through hell in Tokyo because one of his flight attendants died in a clear air turbulence encounter?
If criminal indictments and sanctions cannot be precluded, there will be no cooperation whatever from pilots involved in any incident/accident, CB's on CVRs and FDRs will be routinely pulled, and accident investigation set back for years.
The subjective nature of "pilot error" detirminations also does not lend itself to criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution is applicable to deliberate acts voluntarily committed. It should not be applicable to accidents resulting from human error.
ALPAUS and IFALPA as well have actively sort to avoid the same in countries other than the USA. I support that position.
Let us hope that those of you so quick to condemn never find youselves behind bars due to an operational error that you may one day make.
Those NW guys who flew from Fargo to MSP all went to Federal Prisons for a full year. The Captain was sent to the one in Atlanta, where lots of really bad people reside (well...just nice people who did some bad things). So bad that he seriously considered suicide several times. And he was reportedly no wimp. Upon arrival, certain authorities extrapolated the crew's breathalyzer results, guessing how much it would have registered before the flight. The judge was "ALLEGEDLY" prejudiced, being quite familiar with a railroad accident in which the Engineer had a drug in his system, and wanted to find anyone suspected of being under the influence of whatever, especially in a public transportation industry.
The aircraft was not involved in any actual incident, otherwise, but an FAA "representative" had talked to the Captain just before the flight and mentioned that there was some sort of concern about or problem with the crew. The Captain never told the First Officer or Flight Engineer about the conversation. The Captain later earned all of his ratings back from scratch and became an instructor. The other pilots were never welcomed back because they had never confessed to a drinking problem-
sounds kind of like the "Peoples' Republic" of China mentality...? I read all of this somewhere.
The aircraft was not involved in any actual incident, otherwise, but an FAA "representative" had talked to the Captain just before the flight and mentioned that there was some sort of concern about or problem with the crew. The Captain never told the First Officer or Flight Engineer about the conversation. The Captain later earned all of his ratings back from scratch and became an instructor. The other pilots were never welcomed back because they had never confessed to a drinking problem-
sounds kind of like the "Peoples' Republic" of China mentality...? I read all of this somewhere.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very interesting situation - Canada is a country of "common law", which comes from the UK (and similar in the USA), as both nations owe their ancestry to the UK.
I ask members of pprune - where do you stand with respect to pilots facing criminal charges for accidents?
I ask members of pprune - where do you stand with respect to pilots facing criminal charges for accidents?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to ask, why should a pilot not face criminal charges if there is evidence of them committing a criminal offence?
If you drive your car and screw it up, you face criminal charges. If you are a train driver, the same, if you the captain of a ship and do something illegal...you end of in court. Why then should a pilot be iminune from prosecuction?
Oldbloke, the pilot of the BA 747 that went rather low over the Penta was charged by the CAA not police.
If you drive your car and screw it up, you face criminal charges. If you are a train driver, the same, if you the captain of a ship and do something illegal...you end of in court. Why then should a pilot be iminune from prosecuction?
Oldbloke, the pilot of the BA 747 that went rather low over the Penta was charged by the CAA not police.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: the state of denial
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some thoughts on the subject:
The article quoted in the first post infers that the pilot ran out of fuel. Try convincing a lawyer that there is no negligence embedded somewhere in that one (if that is the case).
No intent to offend anyone, but it seems apparent that the arguments put forward in this thread of no criminal consequences for pilot error are not put forward by people with legal training. You have to understand that it sounds ridiculous, almost insulting, from a lawyer's perspective because that statement is essentially calling for immunity for a specific group of people. That argument will, most likely, never stick with any legal scholar.
Take a bus driver (a somewhat poor example, I know) who drives over someone at a bus stop. His actions, when determining criminal negligence/culpability, will be weighed against the performance of the average driver. How would an average bus driver have acted?
It should also be noted that criminal culpability for transport related incidents and accidents does not always (by that I mean "in many legal systems") contain a pre-requisite of intent (dolus): simple negligence can suffice.
As it stands today, I would venture as far as to say that they cannot. This is perhaps a pessimistic view, but there you have it. Nothing guarantees indemnity (nothing in black and white letters in a legal document), we only have the assurance of aviation authorities of no consequences. Even the EU incident reporting directive is a compromise in that sense. It doesn't as such preclude administrative , not to mention criminal, sanctions following an incident report.
Note that “pilot error” is not legal terminology. It can equally be an act that does, and an act that does not, lead to criminal consequences.
The article quoted in the first post infers that the pilot ran out of fuel. Try convincing a lawyer that there is no negligence embedded somewhere in that one (if that is the case).
No intent to offend anyone, but it seems apparent that the arguments put forward in this thread of no criminal consequences for pilot error are not put forward by people with legal training. You have to understand that it sounds ridiculous, almost insulting, from a lawyer's perspective because that statement is essentially calling for immunity for a specific group of people. That argument will, most likely, never stick with any legal scholar.
Take a bus driver (a somewhat poor example, I know) who drives over someone at a bus stop. His actions, when determining criminal negligence/culpability, will be weighed against the performance of the average driver. How would an average bus driver have acted?
It should also be noted that criminal culpability for transport related incidents and accidents does not always (by that I mean "in many legal systems") contain a pre-requisite of intent (dolus): simple negligence can suffice.
If criminal indictments and sanctions cannot be precluded, there will be no cooperation whatever from pilots involved in any incident/accident, CB's on CVRs and FDRs will be routinely pulled, and accident investigation set back for years.
Note that “pilot error” is not legal terminology. It can equally be an act that does, and an act that does not, lead to criminal consequences.
There have been quite a lot of railwaymen prosecuted (and convicted) in the UK for causing accidents - that's been happening for well over a hundred years.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Burton upon Trent England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Led
the incident you refer to was at East Midlands the full AAIB report can be found here
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...hcsp#P118_4495
Still searching for follow up re crew
the incident you refer to was at East Midlands the full AAIB report can be found here
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...hcsp#P118_4495
Still searching for follow up re crew
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surplus1
I think you will find that many juries know nothing of the subject of a criminal charge 99% of the time. Take Fraud for example, or a major train crash. The suggestion that someone can not have a fair trail because a jury wont understand it, is therefore not valid.
Its part of the proescution and defences job to ensure that the jury do understand the facts and can therefore make judgment on those facts. Again prosecution and defence lawyers/solicitors/barristers really should ensure that they understand before any trail. They have access to expert witnesses who can explain.
As regards to another point you raise, US citizens in other countries, like visitors from any country are subject to local laws. If you are a US passport holder and you steal something in the UK you would not expect to be immune from prosecution, any more than the reverse. If the law in a country says you can't do something, and you don't believe that law is correct or you don't consider thier system of justice correct, then don't go there, and if you do, obey those laws.
You mention Pilot Error, which is a loose term and has been pointed out is not a legal term. Any prosecution is going to require more evidence than that term. Not uploading enough fuel for a flight may well be pilot error, but its also negligence. That negligence may well be criminal, depending upon the circumstances.
The assumption that a pilot will refuse to cooperate with an investigation into an incident because he may face criminal charges, doesn't hold up either. There is nothing to stop a pilot who has been negligent being sued, co operation doesn't stop because of that. In any case, if you have done nothing wrong, why should you not be willing to co operate.
I think you will find that many juries know nothing of the subject of a criminal charge 99% of the time. Take Fraud for example, or a major train crash. The suggestion that someone can not have a fair trail because a jury wont understand it, is therefore not valid.
Its part of the proescution and defences job to ensure that the jury do understand the facts and can therefore make judgment on those facts. Again prosecution and defence lawyers/solicitors/barristers really should ensure that they understand before any trail. They have access to expert witnesses who can explain.
As regards to another point you raise, US citizens in other countries, like visitors from any country are subject to local laws. If you are a US passport holder and you steal something in the UK you would not expect to be immune from prosecution, any more than the reverse. If the law in a country says you can't do something, and you don't believe that law is correct or you don't consider thier system of justice correct, then don't go there, and if you do, obey those laws.
You mention Pilot Error, which is a loose term and has been pointed out is not a legal term. Any prosecution is going to require more evidence than that term. Not uploading enough fuel for a flight may well be pilot error, but its also negligence. That negligence may well be criminal, depending upon the circumstances.
The assumption that a pilot will refuse to cooperate with an investigation into an incident because he may face criminal charges, doesn't hold up either. There is nothing to stop a pilot who has been negligent being sued, co operation doesn't stop because of that. In any case, if you have done nothing wrong, why should you not be willing to co operate.