Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

What's the biggest fine or sentence ever imposed on a pilot?

Clipperstorch wrote:

I would love that.

Be careful what you wish for.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The accident investigation as such is not intended to “apportion blame or liability.” I can’t see that this would prevent the accident investigation to be used as evidence in a court of law.

I agree. On the other hand, it is at least arguable that common sense should have moderated the use in subsequent proceedings of evidence given to accident investigators.

I’m afraid that train has left the station. It’s a pity, but many accident witnesses now feel that they have nothing to gain and much to lose by volunteering to accident investigators more than the absolute minimum information required by law.

“KISS” is the order of the day. And phone a specialist lawyer with a decent track record.

Glenswinton, SW Scotland, United Kingdom

Clipperstorch wrote:

I would love that. It would make ticket prices far more fair.

Be careful what you wish for.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

In the US and the UK, large parts of the accident report cannot be used as evidence on court because they are hearsay. So simple statements of fact (such as the crash scene photos, radar plots) are admissible (but can of course be challenged by the defence, who can contest their veracity but needs to convince the jury) while anything which is an expert opinion / assessment of probable cause / relies on a witness statement is inadmissible, the prosecution would need to bring the expert or witness to court to repeat their statements there so they can be cross-examined. Exactly where the boundary lies is a bit fuzzy.

Shifting the boundary further (as apparently has been happening in Switzerland) is a massive problem.

When you are interviewed by the police, you are normally given some kind of caution that what you say may be used against you, and have the right to remain silent. The details vary by country but this seems now to be pretty universal in most western democracies.

The general advice given by lawyers is to STFU and say nothing until you have consulted with them, and very little thereafter.

This is of course incompatible with accident investigation, which relies on honesty without fear of repercussion.

Biggin Hill

Remember the law is very different in different countries. Yes many countries follow a British style of jurisprudence which is an adversarial system whilst many others have a non adversarial system. In the event of an accident investigation the witnesses identified within the accident enquiry can be called by the judge’s office to attend an interview, where they will be asked to tell what they witnessed again. It is therefore no longer hearsay. I don’t know which system Switzerland follows, it might be one of its own after all Switzerland wasn’t born yesterday in terms of its legal framework.

France

Jacko wrote:

It’s a pity, but many accident witnesses now feel that they have nothing to gain and much to lose by volunteering to accident investigators more than the absolute minimum information required by law.

And this is exactly what undermines the intention of Annex 13.

I know some TSB people who are frustrated with this as well, as it makes their work much more difficult. I hear that some TSB’s now inform people they interview not unlike the police does and take measures to restrict access to information if the person refuses. How well that works is anyone’s guess, but even if the dockets are not opened, the final report always is.

IMHO, TSB’s also have to be very careful not to pass judgmental analysis or recommendations in their final reports. This is another bit which I’ve heard discussed in accident investigation circles. The report discussed was one of those where judgmental analysis outweighed the fact finding. The opinion goes that this has become the rule rather than the exception.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

I know some TSB people who are frustrated with this as well, as it makes their work much more difficult. I hear that some TSB’s now inform people they interview not unlike the police does and take measures to restrict access to information if the person refuses.

Fantasies by movie makers like in the movie “Sully” doesn’t improve things.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

In the US and the UK, large parts of the accident report cannot be used as evidence on court because they are hearsay.

They cannot be used in a civil tort suit. In a criminal proceeeding the NTSB is under the obligation to share data, and the deposition records are not sealed either. See Valujet conviction.

I don’t know which system Switzerland follows, it might be one of its own after all Switzerland wasn’t born yesterday in terms of its legal framework.

Napoleon Code, same as the rest of continental Europe (Nordics excepted).

Last Edited by T28 at 18 Jul 16:29
T28
Switzerland

gallois wrote:

Yes many countries follow a British style of jurisprudence which is an adversarial system whilst many others have a non adversarial system. In the event of an accident investigation the witnesses identified within the accident enquiry can be called by the judge’s office to attend an interview, where they will be asked to tell what they witnessed again. It is therefore no longer hearsay.

I believe that’s the same principle at play in what @Cobalt was saying, and the adversarial vs inquisitorial system of justice has no bearing on it.

Basically the accident report cannot simply be presented to the court (whatever system) and taken as incontestable fact. The witness, whether expert or not, would have to appear before the court and give their evidence.

EGLM & EGTN

No under the Napoleonic code a witness may simply be called to the judge’s offices to give a statement to an officer of the court. Often this is (only speaking for France here) is a gendarme especially atrached to the office. They may never have to appear in court.

France
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top