'Other' Adam,
Quote:
|
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.
|
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.