Aircraft accidents and Criminal Negligence

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
This Article from AOPA is very good. It deals with a Stearman accident that Tragically killed a little girl. I recall the posts on this when it happened and folks skewered the pilot, saying he is a murderer , absolutley negligent etc. I thought this would be an excellent read and topic of discussion now that more facts have come to light. Some may continue to hold the same opinions some may not. Regardless this pilots saga is something that could effect all of us and it is certainly something we can all learn from. I was going to post a poll but that would not give a fair chance (to limiting) for folks to express their opinions. Please keep in mind that there are two potential cases here the criminal and the civil case.

As for me I think the pilots negligence killed the little girl but I am not ready to say that it rose to the level of criminal negligence and I think that all to often prosecutors file charges based on the press they will receive. I want read the entier NTSB report before passing judgment on what effect it had on the DAs decision to prosecute. ie could this really be called a "populated area"? One thing is for sure the guy was an IDIOT for accepting the $8.00 yes eight dollars from one pax ( unrelated to the accident)

There are so many questions that come up such as is the Stearman's Pilot any more criminally negligent than the pilot of the TBM that went down in the recent Angel Flight Tradedy in the Mid West. Some have suggested he took off in bad Wx or any other pilot who made a decision that hindsight could question?


http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2008/accident0807.html
 
I still have mixed feelings. Was it criminal negligence? I'm not sure. My first thought is he had no business flying in an area without first knowing any and all obstructions. But then, that's a given for any pilot. Did he know those wires were there and still chose to fly down the river? We'll never know and he probably wouldn't admit it if he did.

As for the FAA investigator to call it congested, that seemed a stretch. Is there any reference to the exact area this happen in? I'd like to see the sectional. By all the descriptions I read before, the 500 foot rule applies.

Either way, he got off easier than she did. He lived and she didn't. Will living with it be enough? That depends on his own conscience.
 
It wasn't a little girl but instead a 39-year-old woman with a husband and children. (Not that that matters much; it's bad either way.)
 
I hope the folks who say I'm making too much about the letter of the law in these cost-sharing discussions will note the issues arising from the $8 involved in this case.
 
Ron Levy said:
I hope the folks who say I'm making too much about the letter of the law in these cost-sharing discussions will note the issues arising from the $8 involved in this case.
Click to expand...
And the scary thing is that, had he told the rider who urged him to take the token payment to instead donate it to the charity there, that would be used during the civil trial to tie the charity more closely to him, because they probably have deeper pockets.:(
 
gprellwitz said:
And the scary thing is that, had he told the rider who urged him to take the token payment to instead donate it to the charity there, that would be used during the civil trial to tie the charity more closely to him, because they probably have deeper pockets.:(
Click to expand...

Ugh. I hate stuff like that.

One of our drivers recently witnessed an accident between a truck and a car and stopped to help. Our truck was listed in the accident report by the police, and even though it was not involved in the accident at all, that made it a DOT-recordable accident for us, which lowers our safety rating. :mad:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Ugh. I hate stuff like that.

One of our drivers recently witnessed an accident between a truck and a car and stopped to help. Our truck was listed in the accident report by the police, and even though it was not involved in the accident at all, that made it a DOT-recordable accident for us, which lowers our safety rating. :mad:
Click to expand...
What idiot established that rule?

Similarly, I know someone who had their insurance rates jacked up because a drunk drive hit them while they were sitting STOPPED at a red light. Go figure!
 
I don't remember ever giving an opinion on this when it first happened (although I still do not have access to AOPA's forums anymore), so I'll say this:

Originally, I felt that the pilot made a mistake that would wind up scarring aviation irreparably. At the same time, who hasn't flown low over water? Its easy to be the tough guy that claims that mistakes like this would never happen since we are all great pilots that never have fun when we fly, because we are always flying 1000ft above the closest marked obstacle and always along an airway.

Now that I know the rest of the story, I'm even more angry, but not at the pilot. The pilot was doing what we should all be doing: Giving airplane rides to spectators, sharing the magic of flight. He had a mishap, trying to do something he's probably done hundreds of times before.

He sought help and tried to save the girl's life (which not everyone would or has done in similar situations). The DA, the FAA, the press, and the lawyer that will soon represent the plantiffs in the civil case should be ashamed of themselves.

$8?? About the only time you'll hear me say this, but go to hell FAA.
 
SkyHog said:
I don't remember ever giving an opinion on this when it first happened (although I still do not have access to AOPA's forums anymore), so I'll say this:

Originally, I felt that the pilot made a mistake that would wind up scarring aviation irreparably. At the same time, who hasn't flown low over water? Its easy to be the tough guy that claims that mistakes like this would never happen since we are all great pilots that never have fun when we fly, because we are always flying 1000ft above the closest marked obstacle and always along an airway.

Now that I know the rest of the story, I'm even more angry, but not at the pilot. The pilot was doing what we should all be doing: Giving airplane rides to spectators, sharing the magic of flight. He had a mishap, trying to do something he's probably done hundreds of times before.

He sought help and tried to save the girl's life (which not everyone would or has done in similar situations). The DA, the FAA, the press, and the lawyer that will soon represent the plantiffs in the civil case should be ashamed of themselves.
Click to expand...
I disagree, Nick. Flying low over a river and not having a clear idea of what's crossing it and where? That's a pretty dangerous act and does constitute negligence. While I lean toward criminal negligence, I'd like to know more. Either way, it appears he disregarded the risks in an unfamiliar area.
 
KennyFlys said:
I disagree, Nick. Flying low over a river and not having a clear idea of what's crossing it and where? That's a pretty dangerous act and does constitute negligence. While I lean toward criminal negligence, I'd like to know more. Either way, it appears he disregarded the risks in an unfamiliar area.
Click to expand...
He said he thought he was somewhere else but later realized he was about a mile and a half off. Who among us haven't had that issue (with or without GPS, MAP, and PAX).
Negligent probably. Criminally so, I don't t think so. It was just an accident, tragic, but an accident.
 
silver-eagle said:
He said he thought he was somewhere else but later realized he was about a mile and a half off. Who among us haven't had that issue (with or without GPS, MAP, and PAX).
Negligent probably. Criminally so, I don't t think so. It was just an accident, tragic, but an accident.
Click to expand...
Which is why I push on my students to be constantly aware of their position. Situational awareness on your location and options will one day save your rear.
 
KennyFlys said:
Which is why I push on my students to be constantly aware of their position. Situational awareness on your location and options will one day save your rear.
Click to expand...

And you can push and push Ken, but dammit we are NOT perfect and never will be.

It is EASY to be a 1/2 a mile or so off based on visual references.
 
I do condemn the pilot for his failure to maintain appropriate situational awareness- but I think we all know that, no matter what happens, he'll be living this nightmare for the balance of his life.

If, like most of us, he is not wealthy, the principal purpose of suing him will be to secure payment from his liability insurance carrier.

As for criminal liability? This is purely reputation-bait for an ambitious prosecutor.
 
Since the pilot was deliberately violating several FAR's (starting with 91.119 -- you can't tell me that he didn't realize how low he was if he hit wires 70 feet above the water), I can see how a case for criminal negligence could be made. From Wikipedia:
But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation...
Click to expand...
 
AdamZ said:
This Article from AOPA is very good. It deals with a Stearman accident that Tragically killed a little girl. I recall the posts on this when it happened and folks skewered the pilot, saying he is a murderer , absolutley negligent etc. I thought this would be an excellent read and topic of discussion now that more facts have come to light. Some may continue to hold the same opinions some may not. Regardless this pilots saga is something that could effect all of us and it is certainly something we can all learn from. I was going to post a poll but that would not give a fair chance (to limiting) for folks to express their opinions. Please keep in mind that there are two potential cases here the criminal and the civil case.

As for me I think the pilots negligence killed the little girl but I am not ready to say that it rose to the level of criminal negligence and I think that all to often prosecutors file charges based on the press they will receive. I want read the entier NTSB report before passing judgment on what effect it had on the DAs decision to prosecute. ie could this really be called a "populated area"? One thing is for sure the guy was an IDIOT for accepting the $8.00 yes eight dollars from one pax ( unrelated to the accident)

There are so many questions that come up such as is the Stearman's Pilot any more criminally negligent than the pilot of the TBM that went down in the recent Angel Flight Tradedy in the Mid West. Some have suggested he took off in bad Wx or any other pilot who made a decision that hindsight could question?


http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2008/accident0807.html
Click to expand...

The AOPA article was about the Stearman pilot who was charged after his passenger -- an adult woman, not a "little girl" -- was killed.

I thought the article was a bit too glowing, and seemed to sidestep some of the issues.

While I feel a twinge of "there but for the Grace of God go I...", I also don't do low-level maneuvering, aerobatics, or other stupid stuff during first-time flights, so I can distance myself from this situation.

I'd rather the passenger walk away bored than dead.

The precedent is alarming, but not surprising. No matter the event, when there's an injury, someone's going to pay.
 
KennyFlys said:
Which is why I push on my students to be constantly aware of their position. Situational awareness on your location and options will one day save your rear.
Click to expand...


There's situational awareness, and then there's Nap Of The Earth maneuvering.

One can admit a bit of slop, the other none at all.
 
I believe that willful blindness requires the parties to basically be in the position of "we KNEW this bad thing was LIKELY to happen, and we deliberately did it anyway". It's the premeditation that makes the negligence criminal. Dumping toxic waste, selling a product you know to be defective, etc, come to mind.

But I'll admit my knowledge of criminal law is based on classes in Glynco and Quantico a long time ago.
 
Sad story... no one wins on this one. The grieving family lost a mom and wife. The pilot will also bear the consequences of this flight for the rest of his life.

I have nothing against low flights but you better check where you are and where you're going. Cables across a river are very hard to spot and you simply can't count on going under/over at the last minute.
 
TMetzinger said:
I believe that willful blindness requires the parties to basically be in the position of "we KNEW this bad thing was LIKELY to happen, and we deliberately did it anyway". It's the premeditation that makes the negligence criminal. Dumping toxic waste, selling a product you know to be defective, etc, come to mind.

But I'll admit my knowledge of criminal law is based on classes in Glynco and Quantico a long time ago.
Click to expand...

And a good attorney will be able to convince a jury that such was the case in many, many "accidents."

Remember -- it's not about what's true, it's an adversarial system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top