Criminal charges in aviation

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 8:10 am

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?

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu May 17, 2007 8:45 am

I know many pilots who spend time "in" bars.

Seriously though, I’ve heard of a few who went to jail for being caught transporting illegal drugs and even one dude who stole an airplane. Otherwise, it’s a very rare occurrence.

Generally, it’s not criminal intent that contributes to accidents. It’s ignorance or contempt for the rules. Operators don’t usually have such ill will towards their customers that they wish harm to them or knowingly put them in harm’s way.

Failure to follow the rules results in enforcement under the aeronautics act and that is normally the only legal action. I think they reserve criminal charges to cases of gross negligence or where there was intent to harm. Like in the current legal proceedings for a young pilot in Manitoba (negligence) or in the Air India incident (intent).

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:02 am

CID, to validate your opinions, would you mind sharing with us the level of pilot licence you hold (none, ppl, cpl, atpl) and how many thousands of hours of flight time you have logged?

Thx,

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:08 am

Over the last few decades, even when someone has been either stupid or malicious or malfeasant, I can't recall of any Fixed-wing pilots going to the bucket in Canada except for the few dough-heads in the 80's that thought running drugs was easy.

Couple wound up doing hard labour in Texas prisons for 125 year consecutive terms. Smart career choice.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:08 am

Ah yes, the Keystone/Tayfel case. I think there has been a lot of comment that the operator should also (or instead) be up on criminal charges. As usual, the pilot has been held accountable with no consideration of the operational pressures that may have caused that fatal error.

Since employers are required by law to maintain a safe workplace/environment, ignorance and contempt for the rules can and should be construed as a failure to maintain that "culture of safety".

In other industries, there have been many calls for the use of Bill C-45, where operational pressures, poor maintenance, etc., have resulted in injuries or death. Why should it be any different in aviation?

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:16 am

CID, to validate your opinions, would you mind sharing with us the level of pilot licence you hold (none, ppl, cpl, atpl) and how many thousands of hours of flight time you have logged?

Hedley, I'm under no obligation to validate anything. Just like you're under no obligation to read my comments or agree with me.

In case you weren't aware, this is an anonymous forum. I post within the rules and respect the spirit of the dicussions by remaining anonymous. That means I don't give little hints or clues regarding my identity including location, licenses, affliations, sexual preferences or how many city bridges I've flown under.

Cheers.

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:21 am

In other industries, there have been many calls for the use of Bill C-45, where operational pressures, poor maintenance, etc., have resulted in injuries or death. Why should it be any different in aviation?

Royal ascent of C-45 predates the incident. It's my understanding that the intent of SMS is to firmly entrench many of the principals of C-45 into aviation using requirements specific to aviation.

Personally, I think the company principals should be nailed along side the pilot in this case. Unfortunately the circumstances may make that difficult in this particular case.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:33 am

Ok then, is flying under a "city bridge" negligent, or grossly negligent?

Does the height of the bridge, or the width of the spans determine the difference?

What about a "country bridge"?

You can answer anonymously, of course

P.S. According to you, are all of the Red Bull competitors going to jail? Or just hell?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 9:33 am

How will SMS entrench the principles of C-45 if TCCA will only inspect the paperwork unless the operator doesn't cover his/her tracks, and those tracks are protected by the "secret" SMS reporting system?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu May 17, 2007 10:26 am

Hedley:

How about taking off from under a bridge then flying through it.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... 3R3481.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... Bridge.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... 3R3546.jpg

Is that being wreckless and an act that should be punished?

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Thu May 17, 2007 11:01 am

Hedley wrote:CID, to validate your opinions, would you mind sharing with us the level of pilot licence you hold (none, ppl, cpl, atpl) and how many thousands of hours of flight time you have logged?

Thx,

Forgive me Hedley, but that's a ridiculous request.
"Opinions" don't require validation. Secondly, time behind the windscreen is no better guage of anyone's understanding of aviation safety than time behind a drivers wheel is a measure of one's understanding of road safety.

For instance, do you suppose your thousands of hours (or whatever) spent tumbling about in your little Pitts gives you any expertise on the subject of airline safety? I'm sure you're the resident expert on how to perform a Lomcevak in a Pitts Special, but that does little to qualify you as any kind of aviation safety expert. No offense intended.

CID (and others) has made his grasp of aviation safety and regulation quite evident with several of his posts here... I'm inclined to listen to what he has to say on such topics... I'm sure I'm not alone. Learning he had 10 zillion hours in Ford Trimotors and Bristol Blenheim's, or had never flown an airplane at all wouldn't change that.

Cheers,
Mitch

PS - Though I've got several thousand hours messin' with airplanes with my toolbox at hand, I've only got about 130 hrs or so of flying experience... so does that make me inelligible to comment?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu May 17, 2007 11:41 am

Mitch: If someone had never maintained an aircraft, how relevant would their opinions be to you, on the subject of maintaining an aircraft?

Regardless of how strongly or eloquently a monday morning armchair quarterback may hold or express their opinions, they are still of little value.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 11:44 am

Sometimes you have to be outside the box to see what is going on inside.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Thu May 17, 2007 11:59 am

So, the consensus is that every one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

has provided little or no value in the past with their court testimony?

I suspect this revelation may rock the legal world, and have severe impact upon future litigation ....

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:15 pm

Of course expert witnesses provide information of extreme value that must be recognized. That does not mean that those looking from outside the box have no understanding and are unable to make informed analysis. I would think it is a combination of viewpoints that help realize the truth. After all, everyone's "truth" is different.

Mitch Cronin · Post by **Mitch Cronin** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:09 pm

Hedley wrote:So, the consensus is that every one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

has provided little or no value in the past with their court testimony?

How in the blazes to you come to that conclusion???

Sheesh Hedley, If someone tells you something is not white, do you automatically assume it's black, or do you recognize there are several other possibilities?

I don't reckon one needs to be either a pilot or an aircraft mechanic to know how a wing contributes to flight, but that doesn't mean an expert provides "little or no value"!

Much of what CID comments on has to do with aviation safety... does it take a large leap to imagine there might be some folks who know a great deal about that subject who don't fly?

CD · Post by CD » Thu May 17, 2007 1:10 pm

This has been discussed on the site before as well...

Aviation Safety Groups Issue Joint Resolution Condemning Criminalization of Accident Investigations

Note Cases of “Rush to Judgment”

Alexandria, VA – October 18, 2006 – The Flight Safety Foundation (FSF), the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO), the Royal Aeronautical Society in England (RAeS) and the Academie Nationale de L’Air et de L’Espace (ANAE) in France today issued an unprecedented joint resolution decrying the increasing tendency of law enforcement and judicial authorities to attempt to criminalize aviation accidents, to the detriment of aviation safety.

“We are increasingly alarmed that the focus of governments in the wake of accidents is to conduct lengthy, expensive, and highly disruptive criminal investigations in an attempt to exact punishment, instead of ensuring the free flow of information to understand what happened and why, and prevent recurrence of the tragedy,” said Bill Voss, FSF President and CEO.

“The aviation industry is the most labor-intensive safety operation in the world, and human error is a rare but inevitable factor in the safety chain. Prosecuting basic human error is a grave mistake, as punishment should be reserved for those who are breaking the law,” commented Alexander ter Kuile, Secretary General of CANSO.

“Authorities should be focusing on gathering all the facts and evidence from those involved,” said Keith Mans, RAeS President, “and encouraging pilots, air traffic controllers, mechanics, design engineers, managerial officers, and safety regulatory officials to come forward and admit any mistakes without fear of retribution.”

“There exist many civil and administrative mechanisms to deal with any violation of aviation standards, without resort to criminal sanctions,” said Jean-Claude Buck, President of ANAE.

The safety organizations noted several recent, high-profile examples of this trend, including the ongoing investigation of the recent Embraer/Gol midair collision in Brazil, a recent French Supreme Court decision not to dismiss criminal charges stemming from the July 2000 Air France Concorde crash, an imminent verdict in the criminal trial following the 1992 Air-Inter crash in Strasbourg, France, of government, airline, and manufacturing officials, and the pursuit of criminal manslaughter charges against a number of air traffic controllers and managers of Skyguide in Switzerland in connection with the DHL/Bashkirian midair collision over southern Germany in 2002. The joint resolution makes five main points:

1. Declares that the paramount consideration in an investigation should be to determine the probable cause of the accident and contributing factors, not to criminally punish individuals.

2. Declares that, absent acts of sabotage and willful or particularly egregious reckless conduct, criminalization of an accident is not an effective deterrent or in the public’s best interest.

3. Urges States to exercise far greater restraint and adopt stricter guidelines before officials initiate investigations or bring criminal prosecutions in the wake of aviation disasters.

4. Urges States to safeguard the safety investigation report and probable cause/contributing factors conclusions from premature disclosure and direct use in civil and criminal proceedings. It also criticized prosecutorial use of relatively untrained and inexperienced “experts,” which can lead to “technically flawed analyses, a miscarriage of justice, and interference with official accident inquiries.”

5. Urges accident investigating authorities to assert strong control over the investigation, free from undue interference from law enforcement, invite international cooperation in the investigation, conduct investigations deliberately and avoid a “rush to judgment,” ensure the free flow of essential safety information, and address swiftly any acts or omissions in violation of aviation standards.

The resolution can be viewed in its entirety at http://www.flightsafety.org.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:29 pm

I don't believe our justice system allows for this kind of unwarranted investigation.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:43 pm

Hey Cat, I am glad you are "wreckless".

As for being an expert witless.......

Sorry! Some people are trying to be serious here.

I do not remember anyone ever being criminally charged, let alone incarcerated, directly from aviating issues. I do feel I have known people who should have been.
Most of them work for the government. (I am NOT joking on this.)

CD's post reveals the concern of organizations dealing with this field, but
in the total absence of some kind of punishment, where is the deterrent?

Curiously, in the most legislated industry I know, there is very little 'hard' punishment for wrongdoers. Is this because of a benign sort of oversight by TC, or their incompetence?
I do remember an engineer removing an unserviceable component from an aircraft and putting it (knowingly) into the one I was about to fly. Had I called the cops/TC on it, I am sure there would have been some way for him to wriggle out of it. Perhaps the only way he would have paid would have been criminal negligence if we had all died. I think he did it through 'company culture', not of his own volition. I am confident that this attitude prevails still today.

I told the owner if it happened again I would personally turn that engineer in to Enforcement. I suppose under SMS, I would still receive the same kind of response, brush up my resume and buy some stamps.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:54 pm

I know someone who went to the police about the theft of an aircraft part. He was told it was a civil matter.

CID · Post by **CID** » Thu May 17, 2007 4:39 pm

Theft IS a civil matter. I don't recall any CARS that deal with theft.

Ref Plus 10 · Post by **Ref Plus 10** » Thu May 17, 2007 4:43 pm

Widow wrote:I know someone who went to the police about the theft of an aircraft part. He was told it was a civil matter.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Thu May 17, 2007 5:03 pm

Isn't theft illegal?

CD · Post by CD » Thu May 17, 2007 5:06 pm

Only if you're going to re-sell the parts for cash and machine guns...

Airline Employee Arrested in Theft of Aircraft Parts

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Thu May 17, 2007 5:52 pm

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