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.
|