Criminal prosecution of Garuda pilot
SMH today: CLicky
Is anyone else worried by the concept of criminal charges for a member of flight crew involved in an accident? |
Errrrrr, NOPE !
21 people died because of his direct actions (allegedly) ! |
What evidence would you admit in the trial, Kim? FDRs? CVRs?
|
I don't believe he has denied the 15 warnings. I don't believe he has denied the co-pilot's version of events. There are enough international observers there to comment as to whether he gets a fair trial.
|
Question still stands, however. Would you admit CVR and FDR data as evidence in a criminal prosecution?
|
I don't see why not ! But I'm no legal eagle or aviation expert !
|
OK. I shall explain.
The purpose of the CVR and FDR, and indeed interviews with those who were there and all the other bits and pieces used in investigations is to provide safety investigators with data to support a safety investigation. Ultimately the purpose of safety investions is to explain why an accident occurred, with the view to learning where any safety issues might lie so that action can be taken - industry-wide if necessary - to reduce the chances of a similar accident occurring again. Crucially, the purpose of a safety investigation is not necessarily to 'point the finger'. The following appears at the start of every investigation report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau: Quote:
The problem as I see it with involving criminal prosecutions is the very natural instinct of people to want to protect themselves. A pilot who is being interviewed following an accident that may or may not have been 'their fault' will naturally clam up and not tell the whole story if in doing so there is a chance that what they say will later be used in court proceedings against them. This of course means that the entire story will not come out, which has far-reaching implications for future aviation safety. Aviation is a complex system. Humans being humans will continue to make mistakes. There are very real psychological phenomena which affect human performance and behaviour and can lead to these mistakes (fixation with landing is one such issue cited in the report into this accident). The difference of course with aviation is that such mistakes can turn very nasty for a lot of people. Investigate accidents to find out why the crew made those mistakes, sure. But criminal prosecution for making such mistakes - for the very act of being human - is surely not the way to go. |
Hi Adam
You make an interesting argument and I am in general agreement with not prosecuting employees or anyone for that matter for human error. However an opposite view could be taken that absolving pilots from any sort of criminal prosecution regardless is also dangerous regarding aviation safety. If the Garuda pilots actions were reckless and thus endangering and ultimately fatal then i feel he should face criminal charges. It is of course a matter of proving that he was reckless and the use of CVR & FDR i imagine could ultimately prove or disprove the case. As I say a simple error is one thing but reckless actions causing death need to be punished. I make no judgement on the specific Garuda case that is for others to prove. Adam |
Thanks for that clear explanation about safety investigations. My Boss was at the airport that morning and was meant to be on board. A very last minute change of plans meant he didn't board. He knew some of those that died and I guess that explains my interest.
What about a similar situation with a bus driver. Say a bus driver is speeding and fails to bring his bus to a halt at a red traffic light, goes through the intersection and collects some poor innocent passer by. Isn't that criminal negligence ? |
'Other' Adam,
Quote:
I'm not saying 'absolve' pilots of blame/responsibility for negligence. Just don't use any evidence tendered for a safety investigation to prosecute (because the first time you do, other pilots in future incidents will not tell the whole story for fear of implicating themselves - thus having an overall negative effect on safety), and don't allow criminal prosecutors anywhere near anyone involved in the accident until the safety investigation is complete. Kim, You raise a fair point. A bus taking out a bystander may well be a symptom of criminal negligence on the part of the driver. The danger is in plunging in assuming negligence from Day One, which is the attitude prosecutors by nature take. First let a proper safety investigation decide why the accident happened. If there might be a case after that avenue has been exhausted, go ahead. But do not use any evidence given in good faith to the safety investigation, for a prosecution. Good discussion fellas, thank you. |
The report talks a lot about fuel conservation and the fact that Garuda was rewarding pilots for conserving fuel. But could it be that this really is the cause of the incident, being the pressure on the pilot from the company? I think rewarding pilots for better fuel management is a great thing, but if it is found that these rewards are compromising safety by putting pressure on the pilots, then it must be recognised that this pressure may lead to incorrect decisions.
I think its fair to convict someone if they're found to be guilty of negligence provided there's enough evidence against a certain decision which in the circumstances would have overwhelmingly been taken to be safer. But in this case there's also the alleged malfunction of the stabilisor and I'm sure if that were the case, the investigation would prove the pilot to be NOT guilty of being negligent. :) |
If the pilot did ignore the co-pilot and the warnings in the cockpit, I think he should definetly go to jail. The pilots actions caused the crash which could have been otherwise prevented and lives spared rather than lost.
I also think that, in this case, Garuda should bear some kind of responsibility for the Saving fuel measure IF it was not mentioned that safety is absolutely paramount (which i find hard to believe was not mentioned). In addition, i think any airlines on a fuel saving measure should make it perfectly clear to pilots, if it isn't already, that safety comes first, although im sure pilots would not want to die for the sake of saving a few gallons of fuel. Note: I would say this about any airline/pilot involved in a situation like this. |
Rhys, are you a pilot?
|
Quote:
No, I am not. Why? |
Quote:
Better still, you fail to take the advice of a kindergarten pupil (no disrespect to flight crew intended...just an over-exaggerated example so that Rhys sees the short-sightedness of his statement) and tell your teacher that 1+1=3, then perhaps you should go to gaol. For spelling gaol wrong, you go to gaol. Now can you understand why ChrisG asked his question? If not, go straight to gaol, do not pass go and certainly do not collect $200. |
All im saying is that from what I have seen and how the accident has been represented to me, i believe he should go to jail (:p). That said, if any of what has happened has been mis-represented to me, then i shall gladly retract and review my opinion.
That is my opinion and should be treated as such. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If someone wants to point me in the direction of some other information, please do, and i will gladly read when i have the time:) |
There are some basic principles which could be overlooked in the discussion. First, there are a number of different charges that have been brought with varying severity. The strongest charge is 'deliberate destruction of an aircraft', and other charges include the more conventional criminal negligence charges.
I think the International Federation of Air Pilots has objected to the most severe of the charges but has accepted that the more conventional charges are within the scope of what might be fair to try the guy on. Then we have the issue of what evidence can be used. The ATSB does not set out to find who is to blame - as has been noted, they look for a cause and for any lessons that can be learned. They do this based on all available evidence in whatever form that evidence takes, some of which might only be inferential based on the laws of physics and some of the observable facts. I don't think it is possible for a prosecution to use the ATSB or its Indonesian counterpart's report as evidence. But what is legitimate is for the evidence that was available for the civil investigation to be used in the criminal trial. It is for the jury to decide in respect of what fact any piece of evidence is probative, and for the counsel and judge to explain to the jury their role, which is to decide if the factual elements of the charge have been made out beyond reasonable doubt. It's a very different process and I don't think any pilot should be concerned about CVR or FDR evidence incriminating them except in the most flagrant kind of case where there was some kind of act which the CVR and perhaps the FDR could demonstrate was wilful rather than negligent or lacking in sufficient experience, competence or skill. I don't have all the facts of the Garuda crash and haven't read the report, but based solely on the newspaper and other media reports of what happened, the pilot does seem to me objectively to at least have a case to answer for criminal negligence causing death. To the extent that the other crew members might have to testify about what happened in the cockpit, and humans have poor recollection after most trauma, the objectivity of the CVR and FDR evidence is hard to beat. It might just as easily contain the defence as it does the prosecution's ace card. |
http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...%20Release.pdf
now one thing you should understand, many of our Asian neighbours seek to lay the blame at someones doorstep rather fix the problem & that's why there are a high number of accidents in the region, China Airlines is high up on that list too, pointing the finger is easier than fixing the problem, its also face saving...but now China Airlines has quite a few western tech crew so things are different, there is accountability whereas before there wasn't. that's not meant as a racist comment..its just an observation, just as an example look at Japanese whaling, the Japanese consume very little whale meat but the practice is still carried out each year, why? because its easier for their government to send the ships out to sea than sack the crews and lose national pride, essentially its a face saving exercise that ends up getting them nowhere, precisely the same with some of Asian carriers and their safety departments. |
A couple of days ago, my work mate watched a 24 year old run a red light. As a consequence of his actions, which he chose to undertake (namely drive through the red light,) my work mate watched two people die. That driver is now in remand on culpable driving charges.
When you take on the responsibility of a pilot, driver or any other role involving people, you must accept the responsibility that comes wih the job, a resonsibility to operate a vehicle in a safe and legal manner. I do not know the facts about the crash other than what I saw. That said, If the PIC chose to ignore warnings, and ignore training he had been given to allow him to legally and competently fly the aircraft in question, then he must be held responsibile for his actions. As for the comment about removing the fuse to disable the CVR, I think that it is a stain on the majority of professional pilots who do the right thing and follow procedures and training. If you have nothing to hide, then whats the issue? PS I was a pilot, |
Quote:
Note the third main paragraph on page 2 of the Report, as well as the third paragraph in the boxed section on that page: Quote:
Quote:
|
Rhys,
Accident Reports are compiled to learn from, and find out what went wrong. NOT to attribute blame. If you're saying that this pilot should be gaoled for his decisions that day, then you're attributing blame. Are you also saying that every other pilot in past accidents who have made a wrong decision, should also go to gaol? If you're not, then why say it about this pilot? I'm not saying he made a right decision or a wrong decision. However, the accident report lays out the facts of the accident for enhancing safety across the aviation industry worldwide. Please have a think about the above, and maybe read things in the reports before blaming people. Chris |
indeed the question of criminal prosecution of the Garuda captain will raise a few eyebrows especially for those who have an active involvement in aviation safety or the legal fraternity.
What Montague had said previously about Asians and pointing fingers are true to a certain extent, although I believe the notion of saving 'face' is more significant. To what extent are the pilots responsible for this accident? Certainly by all means the aircraft as reported by the media was airworthy and visibility definitely was not in question. Airlines, Aircraft Manufacturers, Aircraft part manufacturers have all been sued in many previous accidents. I think it is worthwhile comparing the Garuda crash with the infamous Aeroflot A310 crash over Siberia (where kids were allowed to be seated in the Captain's seat). Does the Tech Crew have the duty of care for ensuring the safety of passengers and occupants on the flight? - the answer is obviously yes - though it's a question of how much or to what extent. What if the Crew unintentionally jeopardised the safety of the flight through his / her actions - yes, they still do have the duty of care, but I would not think they would have breached it. It would be a different story however if the pilot-flying's action was deemed to be so wreckless, to the extent that it could be determined as a deliberate safety breach. It is worth referring to the James Reason's model of safety culture: Quote:
Quote:
I am sure that besides the Garuda crew on this flight, the investigation would have uncovered at least *some* deficiencies within this 'blunt end' of the airline e.g. training issues, organisation culture etc. I do fear that the prosecution of the Flight Crew would pave the way back to the bad days of apportioning the blame solely on the crew. If that is the case I believe this would be counter-productive and that future safety investigations would not be as effective in enhancing safety across our industry. Do note though - under Reason's Safety Culture model for 'just' culture - the element of 'no blame' does not cover those who choose to deliberately sabotage or jeopardise the safety of the flight. |
Quote:
But my opinions are my opinions and they will not be easily changed by people telling me otherwise. I chose to say that this pilot should go to jail because from what I have read of the awareness of the issue in the cockpit, the pilot did not listen at all to warnings, did not respond to various visual and audio alarms and he also mostly ignored the advice of the First Officer on the flight to go around. When i have some time tomorrow i will read through those reports, however right now, from what i have seen, that is my opinion. |
So I suspect it's safe to say that this is your uninformed (or perhaps not completly informed) opinion which you find difficult to change easily. The risk is that your opinion may be wrong, resulting in you casting aspertions on an individual who may be entirely innocent.
|
Quote:
But i will read the reports when i get round to it...im lazy:p |
I believe this is a Catch 22 situation. The Pilot in question more than likely failed to ahead to cockpit warnings and advice from a fellow pilot and landed the aircraft under his command in an unsafe manner. As already mentioned safety investigations are not designed to attribute blame, but find out what went wrong.
However, as also mentioned, there have been previous cases of pilots, tech crew and ground crew charged and found guilty following the safety investigations. Pilots want to feel safe and have confidence in a safety system that is not designed to find them guilty if they cause an accident. The public however want to know that a pilot can be charged if he/she makes a mistake that causes death or injury due to neglect/failure of a duty of care. The FDR/CVR was designed to allow safety investigation to occur. It has been used in criminal cases succesfully and contray to what some say here, if a member of either the aircrew or ground crew can be charged with criminal negligence following an incident causing death then do so. If that makes others scared, well they shouldn't be if they obey the rules, follow laid out instructions and provide a duty of care. If a court of law finds them not guilty, great - if guilty, well lock them up and give them a suitable punishment. |
Any evidence can be tendered, in court and there is very little information these days that cannot be subpoenaed in legal proceedings, particularly when there is a strong probitive value attached to that information. And prior to that there is also much information, records and data that can be obtained by investigators by way of warrant.
However the discussion here should revolve around the key element of acting in accordance with company training, procedures, aviation law and the manufacturers guidelines. Where you act in accordance with these you place yourself well within a window of protection from prosecution and to a lesser degree, civil liability. However when you substantially deviate from one or any of these procedures you leave yourself exposed with no reasonable protection because you have done something that is clearly well outside a number of published procedures, all of which exist to safeguard the aircraft and aviation generally. If you choose to embark on a course of action outside these, then you accept a significant personal liability when things go wrong. And when this happens you should expect no leniency merely because you are flying an aircraft. And as to crew pulling C/B's, well I'd expect they would have a very short and limited future in the industry with any reputable operator should they be caught out doing that. Operators of other vessels and vehicles who are appropriately licenced to a standard and have to comply with accepted rules and laws are held criminally responsible if their actions are so reckless there is injury or damage caused. In that respect why should aircrew, who have significantly greater training, knowledge and expertise of their equipment be held to a lower standard of accountability than the rest of the community? CASA obviously prosecutes pilots for detected offences and should continue to do so in the interests of encouraging compliance. The ATSB obviously have aviation safety and safety improvement as their goal and that should not change, but nor is it reasonable to expect that expert crash investigators will not be called to give evidence in criminal proceedings either. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
One MAJOR point I am completely bemused by is why the pilot didn't exercise his right to silence. :eek: My mind boggles at his decision to talk to the police, especially considering they are seeking life upon conviction. People will generally dig themselves a hole when trying to assist / cooperate with the authorities by participating in an interview; Rarely is it helpful for a defendant. |
Does Indonesia provide the accused the right to silence?
|
Today's news:
Quote:
|
here's hoping he's not made a scapegoat and that Garuda gets processes & recommendations sorted so this doesn't happen again.
|
Garuda crash trial to proceed
News just in:
Quote:
|
Garuda crash trial update
An update from ABC News on the original story:
Quote:
|
Quote:
And is it just me, or is it extremely light punishment to get 4 years for killing 21 people, and Schapelle Corby gets 20 years for 4kg of dope? Which never killed a single person. |
Quote:
Sounds to me like typical Indonesian justice (or lack thereof) at work here!! |
Could one of the pilots on this board please tell me what is the difference between the responsibilties of driving a car and flying an aircraft?
There seems to be a theme through this thread that pilots should not face criminal charges from an accident in which they are involved and found to be at fault. There also seems to be a view that the findings of an accident investigation should never be used by the justice system in the support of any charges. There was also a comment made that pilots would simply pull the circuit breaker on the CVR in fear of it being used as evidence. Surely no pilot worthy of his license would ever stoop to that? Do we need to have control of that sort of equipment taken away from the flight crew? And if the data recorded is good enough for a correct finding in an accident investigation, then assuming evidential rules are met, why should it not be allowed in court if needed? I agree the report is not intended to be proof of criminal conduct or intent, but it is a factual statement of what was done. I'm not commenting on the Garuda case, simply in general. If you have an at fault accident in a car for any reason you rightly face prosecution for negligence. The same applies for the crew of a ship. Why should the same thing not apply to pilots. I most certainly agree that no charges could be laid until after the accident investigation was complete, however long that might take. But if you allow yourself, or choose, to stuff up, how could you possibly think you should not be brought to task for what you had done? I though airlines went out of their way to train "The God Concept" out of their crews these days. |
Bump.
Come on guys, I'm not a pilot or in any way associated with the aviation industry, so could one of the pilots on this board, perhaps AdamP, Nigel C, or Chris G please explain your view points in an answer to my question? You make it sound as if Pilots think they should be absolved of all responsibility in all circumstances, and wish to deny anyone outside the aviation industry the chance to understand what is going on. As a member of the general travelling public, that sounds rather reckless and scary to me. Stephen. |
All times are GMT +10. The time now is 11:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Sydney Airport Message Board 1997-2022