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:
In other words - use the available data to work out what went wrong and why it went wrong. That is why accidents are investigated. They are not investigated to apportion 'blame' in a criminal sense.

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,
Sure, prove there was negligence, if indeed there was. However, the day a pilot is convicted in a case that made use of CVR/FDR evidence to successfully prosecute is the day other pilots will simply pull the circuit breaker in the cockpit, thus shutting off the devices in fear of their own errors being prosecuted. This would be taking what is in my view a very retrograde step for aviation safety overall.

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.