Criminal charges in aviation

gli77 · Post by **gli77** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:20 pm

It is a tricky business in determining criminal charges for aviation incidents/accidents. In Canada I can not recall any event, quite the opposite actually. For example I read this on another site with regards to recent enforcement actions and it shocked me:

"Ontario May 12, 2006 CAR 571.10(1) 7 days licence suspension

An aircraft maintenance engineer signed a maintenance release form on a Cessna 170 indicating that an annual inspection had been carried out and that the aircraft had therefore meet the standards of airworthiness. On a subsequent inspection it was determined that the aircraft had numerous structural defects and did not meet the standards of airworthiness. The individual was sanctioned with a 7 days licence suspension"

I recall a few occurences of ferry/shipping incidents in Canada where the Captian was charged and held liable. Perhaps somebody would know more on this?

I recently saw an interview with General Wesley Clark talking about accountability and he cited the US Navy ship commanders. Apparently if there is a incident/accident the responsibility lies solely on the Admiral. It does not matter if he is at control, sleeping, or going for a jog.

I have worked in other countries where there was a mishap and the Captain just disappeared. I've been in others where the crew were completely at fault but protected by a union.

There would need to be a clear distinction between a mistake and negligence to bring in criminal charges. Perhaps a licence suspension should be invoked for mistake and criminal charges invoked for negligence.

Oh and I tend to agree with Hedley. Experience in the topic does guage more credibility for the opinion.

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:45 pm

CID, I've just gotta ask...did you run over Hedley's dog or something?

Not to my knowledge but it looks like I might have clipped gli77's cat too!

Actually, I have no problem with people on this forum having issues with my credibility. It's a healthy attitude to have when reading ANYTHING on the internet that doesn't come from an authoritative source.

I choose to remain anonymous for two reasons. One, I think it maintains the spirit of open discussion. Two, there are some very nasty people online that would use posted information against you in real life.

With that in mind I don't recommend anyone use their real names here or disclose any personal information.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:47 pm

Some of us choose to live our lives in fear in the shadows.

Others do not.

The choice is yours.

P.S. The nastiest people I have ever met are in the employ of the Canadian government. If there's someone you need to fear, well ... your tax dollars are almost certainly paying their salary and indexed pension.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 8:01 pm

A seven day suspension for releasing a non-airworthy aircraft as airworthy? Now, what if one of those structural defects had resulted in an incident turning into an accident? Would the enforcement action have been any different? Would criminal charges then have been recommended? Or would TC just check to make sure they have a system in place so it "won't happen again", and send them on their merry way?

Have any of you ever browsed TCs Aviation Enforcement Action Summaries? There are remarkably few actions and they take an incredibly long time to finalize.

When it comes to government, who are accountable to the public not to shareholders, the captain should "go down with the ship".

gli77 · Post by **gli77** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:33 pm

Yes that 7 day suspension really caught my eye. The flip side is I imagine the engineer was pretty terrified when he was found out and will likely not do that again. But at any rate I would think a year would be a good minimum for forged paperwork.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:42 pm

Oh look, here's one:

Prairie & Northern April 17, 2004
CAR 602.01
60 days licence suspension

An airline transport pilot flying a Cessna 172 flew very low over a truck on an ice road. During the low pass the aircraft’s right landing gear hit the cab of the vehicle causing extensive damage to the truck and the subsequent loss of the landing gear on the aircraft. The RCMP has charged the pilot under the Criminal Code for Dangerous Operation of an aircraft. In addition, his pilot’s licence has been suspended for 60 days for operating an aircraft in a reckless and negligent manner.

When you look at the number of commercial pilots who have been fined/had license suspended ... do you wonder how much operational support was investigated, and why there are so few corporate offenders?
How do you like this one ...

Pacific August 17, 2002
A.A. 7.31C
CAR 571.11(1)
180 days licence suspension
30 days licence suspension

A commercial pilot and owner of an aircraft operated the aircraft for three years without having a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer sign off on a weld repair that was carried out on the aircraft. He also made a false entry in the maintenance log with the sole intent to mislead. The individual was sanctioned with a licence suspension totalling 210 days.

I can't help but wonder if the guy was flying employees to work during this time.

gli77 · Post by **gli77** » Fri May 18, 2007 1:37 am

On the flip side how many repeat impaired drivers are there on the roads?

CD · Post by CD » Fri May 18, 2007 2:47 am

Or driving without a license or insurance...

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Fri May 18, 2007 5:07 am

gli77 wrote:There would need to be a clear distinction between a mistake and negligence to bring in criminal charges. Perhaps a licence suspension should be invoked for mistake and criminal charges invoked for negligence.

'Tis indeed a tricky business. Imagine how difficult it may be to get any cooperation from a flight crew for an investigation which may involve criminal charges!

gli77 wrote:Oh and I tend to agree with Hedley. Experience in the topic does guage more credibility for the opinion.

That wasn't the issue. You certainy don't need to be a pilot to know a great deal about aviation safety and regulation.

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri May 18, 2007 6:10 am

A seven day suspension for releasing a non-airworthy aircraft as airworthy? Now, what if one of those structural defects had resulted in an incident turning into an accident?

It's tough to comment without knowing the specific details. An airplane is not airworthy when it's unsafe for flight or not in conformity with it's type design. That can mean anything from the engine is about to fall off to a nav light being burned out.

It's often not an issue of intent to cause harm. It's more often a misinterpretation of the regulations. You'd be surprised (and maybe a little repulsed) by the number of AMEs out there that don't understand how to properly defer maintenance or if in fact they are allowed to defer certain defects.

I've often stated that I could do a random check of airplanes on any ramp in Canada and easily determine that many are not airworthy by definition. Fortunately the design standards are such that airplanes tend to be very forgiving.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri May 18, 2007 7:29 am

I've often stated that I could do a random check of airplanes on any ramp in Canada and easily determine that many are not airworthy by definition.

True. I know a grumpy old mechanic who has repeatedly told me that there is NOT ONE legally airworthy aircraft in Canada - give him the books and the aircraft, and he can find something wrong.

One evening, about 10 years ago, we were driving out of the airport, and we went past a C172.

"Not airworthy", the grumpy old mechanic declared.

"Come on", I replied, "We didn't get within 10 feet of it!".

"Doesn't matter", he replied, "It only had 4 inch letters on the tail".

And by god he was right. See CAR 222.01(2)(b) which says:

subject to subsections (c) and (d), the height of each letter in the marks displayed on a heavier-than-air aircraft shall be not less than 15 cm (5.9 inches);

If you don't believe me, start reading here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regse ... htm#222_01

Frankly, I'm amazed that poor 172 didn't plummet from the sky.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:12 am

...and that lettering has to be larger than that (12 inches for big birds - not sure if that changes for little birds?) if there is no registration on the underside of the wing.

But the sarcasm Hedley... "Frankly, I'm amazed that poor 172 didn't plummet from the sky." ...it betrays an attitude of disgust at regulation (not like that's any secret from you!) that isn't a good thing... Many of the sorts of things that grumpy old mechanic might find that others will often miss could be defects that should keep an aircraft grounded until it's fixed.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri May 18, 2007 12:05 pm

You misunderstand. I am merely a suspicious old cynic.

I like - no, love, and even cherish - paper as much as the next guy. Probably more. I love thick paper with really dark ink on it. Piles and piles of it. Happy paper is good paper.

But what I like even more than happy paper is happy metal.

See, you can have happy paper and unhappy metal. The metal can be cracking, corroding, etc.

Now, if I had to choose between happy paper and unhappy metal, or unhappy paper and happy metal, which do you think I would choose? Why?

CID · Post by **CID** » Fri May 18, 2007 12:19 pm

Hedley is right. The size of the registration letters on the side of your airplane won't affect how it flies. Furthermore with small letters you can help the environment by using less paint.

Not only that, you can fly under all the bridges you want and nobody will be able to see your registration and report you.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:22 pm

deleted

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Tue May 22, 2007 11:25 pm

Happy metal and happy paper are not mutually exclusive Hedley. You can, and are required to, have both.

Not criminalizing accident investigations could be very important in some countries. Not all legal systems are like ours in assuming innocence with the burden of proof falling the the state. Some countries begin with a neutral judge who is knocked to one side of the fence or the other after hearing whatever evidence is presented. Others assume guilt and it is up to the accused to prove their innocence. With few exceptions, our laws also require that two elements be met, you committed the act, and that you intended to commit the act. Some places don't require intent and a well intentioned error in judgement can trigger a criminal prosecution.

In Canada there is no reason why some accidents should not trigger a criminal investigation. Perhaps more should be occurring as a lot of people and companies don't really seem to learn much from our current "no fault" system. However, there is the risk that over time the RCMP would become over zealous with aviation investigations and that would be detrimental.

hoptwoit · Post by **hoptwoit** » Wed May 23, 2007 2:39 am

gli77 wrote:On the flip side how many repeat impaired drivers are there on the roads?

Here is a link that may help you with that one GLI.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news ... 2a&k=33623

Its about perception....

gli77 · Post by **gli77** » Wed May 23, 2007 4:15 am

Good post hoptwoit. Although this sentence does not make sense.

"Mary-Ann Kramer, a spokesperson for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said the problem is not how many repeat offenders there are only 2.2 of fatal drunk-driving accidents are caused by repeat offenders"

Canada is an appauling place sometimes.

hoptwoit · Post by **hoptwoit** » Wed May 23, 2007 11:49 am

I knew you would get stuck on that one sentence. Read the whole thing.

Mary-Ann Kramer, a spokesperson for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said the problem is not how many repeat offenders there are only 2.2 of fatal drunk-driving accidents are caused by repeat offenders, she said but rather that Quebec seems to apply penalties so lightly that there is nothing to compel drunk drivers not to reoffend.

"What is the message of sentences of two years less a day served in the community?" Kramer demanded.

"Judges have immense latitude to impose the law, and the law allows for life sentences of 25 years."

gli77 · Post by **gli77** » Wed May 23, 2007 4:28 pm

I think the sentence should read

"...said the problem is not how many repeat offenders there are, as only 2.2% of fatal drunk-driving accidents are caused by repeat offenders..."

Icebound · Post by **Icebound** » Wed May 23, 2007 5:48 pm

Widow wrote:Several posters have implied that operators and pilots sometimes spend time behind bars.

Does anyone have any Canadian examples of charges being laid for an aviation related crime?

... back to the original topic, Widow:

This is a little old, but interesting...

http://www.history.ca/ontv/titledetails ... leid=84389

... but I can't find when it aired.

His complete story is also detailed in a small 10-dollar paperback called "Canadian Crimes and Capers" by Angela Murphy (11 different stories of which his was one).

He was presumed killed when a medevac Aztec that he was piloting disappeared near Thunder Bay in 1979. It wasn't found for four or five months, and when it was, there was no sign of the occupants.

...

Criminal charges in aviation

Re: Criminal charges in aviation