Well, yes. But supposing he just hits the barrier at a curve and a wheel flies over into the stands?
This accident has two aspects: one is that the pilot made an error; the other is that due to the geography of the display area the consequences were grave.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
That is an interesting assessment.
Isn’t that normal? It’s the people organizing the event who are responsible for the participating players or showmen/woman are following the rules and regulations. Usually this is done with fines, penalties, exclusions and stuff like that. Take a look at Red Bull air races. They have all kinds of safety rules. Max 10 g for max 1 second or whatever it was, minimum alt for entering and exit certain positions on the track. The nose must be pointed within a certain range of angles in a turn, and so on. Braking those rules, and they will have a penalty of a couple of seconds extra. Braking the same rule twice, and you are disqualified for instance.
I just don’t see how a participating member can be prosecuted, unless he deliberately does something illegal or completely crazy.
LeSving wrote:
just don’t see how a participating member can be prosecuted, unless he deliberately does something illegal or completely crazy.
The idea of prosecuting this pilot in criminal court strikes me as odd. I assume the guy is being sued into destitution by multiple parties in civil court. In my mind that is the logical punishment for making a stupid mistake.
Silvaire wrote:
The idea of prosecuting this pilot in criminal court strikes me as odd.
Different countries, different rules I guess. Where I live, criminal charges will automatically be brought against anyone who causes the death of humans. A court must then decide whether or not to prosecute the case. I just re-read the aftermath of an airshow accident in 2008 ( German language only – here ) where the pilot of a LET Z37A ag-plane lost control during takeoff and crashed into the spectators, killing two and injuring several more. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years imprisonment. Charges were also brought against the organisers, but they were cleared in court.
As I mentioned ealier in the UK I think the charge is manslaughter by gross negligence. I dont see any other “charge” that could be brought. As I also mentioned earlier an example is an anaesthetist that didnt notice the pipe had come out the patient who died. It seems to me the only test is did the pilot or did the organisers “behave” with gross and blatant negligence.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
It seems to me the only test is did the pilot or did the organisers “behave” with gross and blatant negligence.
Around here, busting that 500ft safety height by more than 300ft would certainly be called either “gross negligence” or even “intent” by 10 out of 10 jury members. And there is zero excuse for that. Any pilot can tell the difference without looking at his altimeter and especially one who has flown a vertical take-off and landing plane for years.
When human error becomes a crime
Sidney W. A. Dekker
“Progress on safety means embracing a systems view and moving beyond
blame. But recent (as well as historical) incidents and accidents often show the
opposite response. Human error sometimes gets turned into a crime by holding the
operator (pilot, controller, maintenance technician) criminally liable for the bad
outcome. Criminalizing human error is hostile to both the systems view and moving
beyond blame. Criminalization singles out individuals under the banner of
“holding them accountable” for outcomes that in reality rely on many more contributions.
Criminalization also countervenes progress on safety in other important
ways. Demonstrated effects include the silencing of incident reporting, polarization
of stakeholder attitudes and positions, and destabilization of industrial relations.
There is no evidence of any safety benefits. This paper explores some motives
behind the criminalization of error and suggests the aviation industry should
redesign accountability relationships between its stakeholders.”
bookworm wrote:
Demonstrated effects include the silencing of incident reporting, polarization of stakeholder attitudes and positions
Well, in this case the pilot (claims to) have no memory, yet we get a 450 page report regardless, and I have heard some pretty polarised views from the now more regulated airshow community, regardless of any talk of prosecution.
Suggesting that threatening sanctions for errors where the pilots easily could use their own lives increases their incentive, is rather silly.
Maybe there are “Hermione Granger” type pilots out there (Quote: “We could get killed, or worse, expelled!”), but somehow I doubt that.
It’s not just pilots, though, is it? It’s show organisers, airfield managers, ATCOs, firemen; indeed, arguably, regulators, who are not at direct personal risk, who might be deterred from corner cutting if they knew that their liberty was on the line.
