Pilot Convicted

[ydoaPs]

A pilot was sentenced to 10 years in prison by an Italian court. What did he do? He let the plane crash. More specifically, he prayed instead of taking any emergency actions to save the lives of the 16 people he let die.

 

Is 10 years a bit harsh considering that he may have actually believed that praying would help? Is it just right? Is it not enough considering he did nothing to try to make the situation better?

[Sayonara]

He's not been convicted of praying, he's been convicted of not carrying out the proper emergency procedures, which is criminal negligence.

 

This is similar to that thread we had on those idiot parents who opted to substitute prayer for insulin and watched their daughter die.

[ydoaPs]

But he believed that praying would save them. That counts for something, right?

[bascule]

But he believed that praying would save them. That counts for something, right?

 

Considering 16 people died... no.

 

A fuel-gauge malfunction was partly to blame but prosecutors also said the pilot succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land the plane instead trying to reach a nearby airport.

 

Seems there were a lot more... tangible things he could've done which he didn't.

[Sayonara]

But he believed that praying would save them. That counts for something, right?

Did he? In the article you linked to it says that prosecutors claim "the pilot succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land the plane instead [of] trying to reach a nearby airport".

 

It doesn't say he believed prayer would help, it says he panicked and prayed out loud, which is very likely just what he does when he panics.

 

But if he had believed prayer was a suitable alternative to starting emergency procedures and making an emergency landing at the airport nearby (as opposed to crashing it into the sea), how would that make him less negligent? How would it make him less responsible for those deaths?

[ParanoiA]

Edit: Ok, I just cross posted with Sayo...seems this little point occurred to all of us.

 

Yeah, I'm with Sayo on this. However, there's one thing that kind of bothers me...

 

A fuel-gauge malfunction was partly to blame but prosecutors also said the pilot succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land the plane instead trying to reach a nearby airport.

 

This is a media report, so I'm not sure how pedantic we can really be and still be accurate to the true events, but if the guy panicked, then I'm not sure how criminally negligent that really is. Sure, he has no business in a cockpit if he's going to panic in an emergency with other's lives at stake, but I don't think I can go along with considering that criminal negligence, unless that's not the charge.

[Sayonara]

There is that, but we can only go with what is in this article until someone finds a better source, and I am assuming that if he was sentenced to ten years in prison then the court must have ruled that he was criminally culpable in some way.

[Mokele]

This is a media report, so I'm not sure how pedantic we can really be and still be accurate to the true events, but if the guy panicked, then I'm not sure how criminally negligent that really is. Sure, he has no business in a cockpit if he's going to panic in an emergency with other's lives at stake, but I don't think I can go along with considering that criminal negligence, unless that's not the charge.

 

He supposed to be trained, and has other people's lives in his hands. If he will panic in an emergency, he should never be piloting, period. Ditto goes for surgeons, or soldiers. Yes, it's a high standard to require, but they train for this and we entrust them with our lives. Asking that they can keep a cool head is not too much to ask.

[ParanoiA]

He supposed to be trained, and has other people's lives in his hands. If he will panic in an emergency, he should never be piloting, period. Ditto goes for surgeons, or soldiers. Yes, it's a high standard to require, but they train for this and we entrust them with our lives. Asking that they can keep a cool head is not too much to ask.

 

I agree 100%. So, should he be jailed upon discovery of his ineptitude?

[bascule]

I agree 100%. So, should he be jailed upon discovery of his ineptitude?

 

16 people died because he freaked out instead of trying to land the plane. So... yes.

[Mokele]

I agree 100%. So, should he be jailed upon discovery of his ineptitude?

 

Yes.

 

Maybe his training wasn't up to snuff, maybe he was just feeling extra jittery that day, maybe any of 100 other explanations could have come into play.

 

But that doesn't change his fundamental responsibility to:

 

1) Sit down before getting a pilot's license and really, deeply, thoroughly think about whether he will freak out in an emergency, making strong conscious effort to avoid just fooling himself to get what he wants.

 

2) Stop and think before even getting on the plan that day about whether or not he could handle an emergency on that particular flights.

 

If the answer to #1 was 'no' or he didn't do it, he was criminally negligent in even continuing his flight training and getting a license. If #2 was 'no', he could have gotten someone else to fly, or cancelled the flight. If he didn't think of #2, he was criminally negligent.

 

I'm familiar with this sort of stuff by analogy, mostly through venomous reptile keeping, but the principle applies - one day, something WILL go wrong, and if you don't stop and think about whether you can handle that, you shouldn't even try.

[ParanoiA]

16 people died because he freaked out instead of trying to land the plane. So... yes.

 

Seems to miss the point of incarceration and punishment though.

 

If this is standard practice and a reasonable response for aviation, then I'll happily concede. I don't know enough about all of this to have too strong of an opinion. My gut, though is telling me they're punishing him because people died, not because he actually did something wrong - as if his actions were distress-free conscious choices.

 

I suppose there's some precedence for that though. I'm not real comfortable with punishing people for not responding perfectly in a crisis. That's a consistent theme of mine. Maybe I'm a bit soft there, but I find it almost insulting to judge people's actions, after the fact, far from danger, that are largely dictated by biological emergency response.

 

If the answer to #1 was 'no' or he didn't do it' date=' he was criminally negligent in even continuing his flight training and getting a license. If #2 was 'no', he could have gotten someone else to fly, or cancelled the flight. If he didn't think of #2, he was criminally negligent.

 

I'm familiar with this sort of stuff by analogy, mostly through venomous reptile keeping, but the principle applies - one day, something WILL go wrong, and if you don't stop and think about whether you can handle that, you shouldn't even try.[/quote']

 

Fair enough. I guess that makes sense. I mean, if we always let them slide, and we didn't demand this standard, flying likely wouldn't be the safest way to travel.

[Mokele]

Seems to miss the point of incarceration and punishment though.

 

Actually, it's precisely in line with the point - to discourage others, or, in this case, to make sure everyone else behind the joystick sits down and thinks about whether they could react calmly.

 

If this is standard practice and a reasonable response for aviation, then I'll happily concede. I don't know enough about all of this to have too strong of an opinion. My gut, though is telling me they're punishing him because people died, not because he actually did something wrong - as if his actions were distress-free conscious choices.

 

I'm not precisely sure (I can't quote a source beyond word-of-mouth), but at my first university, there were a lot of flight majors (whose goal was commercial aviation) and training for problems and to react to them properly is actually a large part of their training.

 

Hell, at one point, due to a control tower error, one of the university's small planes landed on top of another, and the front wheel poked down into the passenger area. But both pilots kept their heads and landed the mess safely.

 

I suppose there's some precedence for that though. I'm not real comfortable with punishing people for not responding perfectly in a crisis. That's a consistent theme of mine. Maybe I'm a bit soft there, but I find it almost insulting to judge people's actions, after the fact, far from danger, that are largely dictated by biological emergency response.

 

I both agree and disagree. If this was some random guy off the street, then I'd agree. But in certain professions / acitvities, there is a considerable level of danger to both one's self and others, and in those cases, people are usually either trained at responding to crisis situations or have to consider their own background before even attempting the activity.

 

After all, it's entirely possible to train out someone's alarm response, albeit only to a very restricted set of circumstances, by simply making them so familiar with the system that they're sure they can deal with anything. Not to be egotistical, but to use myself as an example, most people would freak the hell out at having a 9-foot, 50-lb boa constrictor lashing around with mouth agape mere inches from their face, but because I've spent so long around these animals, when that happened in a public place, I was able to just grab it and stuff it back in the cage without anyone getting hurt. Now, put me in a crisis situation on the road and I'll freak out even faster than most, because I'm a poor driver, lack confidence in my driving, and I'm aware of both (and trying to improve my self-control in this regard, for the sake of safety).

 

The point is, while crises happen, people can be trained to deal with them without panic, and if you doubt your training, you shouldn't put yourself in a situation where other people's lives depend upon your ability in the case of a crisis.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Yes.

 

Maybe his training wasn't up to snuff, maybe he was just feeling extra jittery that day, maybe any of 100 other explanations could have come into play.

 

But that doesn't change his fundamental responsibility to:

 

1) Sit down before getting a pilot's license and really, deeply, thoroughly think about whether he will freak out in an emergency, making strong conscious effort to avoid just fooling himself to get what he wants.

 

2) Stop and think before even getting on the plan that day about whether or not he could handle an emergency on that particular flights.

 

If the answer to #1 was 'no' or he didn't do it, he was criminally negligent in even continuing his flight training and getting a license. If #2 was 'no', he could have gotten someone else to fly, or cancelled the flight. If he didn't think of #2, he was criminally negligent.

 

I'm familiar with this sort of stuff by analogy, mostly through venomous reptile keeping, but the principle applies - one day, something WILL go wrong, and if you don't stop and think about whether you can handle that, you shouldn't even try.

 

So if he did to 1 & 2 thoroughly and with due diligence and unexpectedly succumbed to panic anyway, then he should be out free, correct?

[bascule]

So if he did to 1 & 2 thoroughly and with due diligence and unexpectedly succumbed to panic anyway, then he should be out free, correct?

 

People died... it's his fault... he was criminally negligent

[J.C.MacSwell]

People died... it's his fault... he was criminally negligent

 

Going by the article it sounds like he was certainly at fault, at least partially. I just don't see how it is criminal, if he succumbed to panic. Praying may have been his attempt to control his panic.

[Sayonara]

Like I said, I don't think he was found guilty of prayer. That's just something he did while he was not taking emergency actions or aiming the plane at the airport instead of downwards.

[Pangloss]

Just to explore this a bit, as I understand it there's a distinction between a simple error and criminal negligence. A pilot who just "screws up" might be liable for a malpractice suit, but for a criminal negligence charge something more serious has taken place. I believe it's basically a question of whether the pilot knew there was a danger and decided that it was an acceptable risk, when a reasonable person with the same training and education should have known better.

 

It's a difficult thing to prove, as I understand it, because the standards are high with the defense holding a lot of advantages. A good illustration of this can be seen in the case of Joseph Hazelwood, the captain of the Exxon Valdez, where prosecutors sought a charge of criminal negligence, but had to instead settle for "negligent discharge of oil", a misdemeanor, mainly because they were unable to sufficiently prove that he was drunk at the time of the accident. (According to his Wikipedia entry he still has his license!)

 

The test may be lower in Italy, of course, but I wouldn't automatically assume that. It is worth noting that when a Marine E/A-6B pilot sliced a cable car wire in Northern Italy in 1998, resulting in the deaths of 20 people, extradition was denied, but not because it was felt that an Italian court would be unfair (not that anyone here was suggesting this; I'm just exploring the topic a bit). In fact it was an Italian court that denied extradition based on the NATO treaty which gave the US jurisdiction.

 

The prosecutors in that case also sought criminal negligence (the Wikipedia says "negligent homicide" which I believe is the same thing) convictions but failed to achieve them, even though the record showed that they were flying faster and lower than normal and actually destroyed a video tape of the incident! Their navigational chart didn't show the cable so they were acquitted -- in other words, they didn't know the risk, so they couldn't decide that it was acceptable. (They were found guilty of obstruction and the pilot went to prison briefly.)

 

That case is still the subject of a great deal of discussion in aviation circles, and I imagine this case will be as well, if it isn't already (if it is I haven't noticed it; I'm a bit of a lurker when it comes to aviation-related forums, though I do try to keep informed).

[waitforufo]

From the article

A fuel-gauge malfunction was partly to blame but prosecutors also said the pilot succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land the plane instead trying to reach a nearby airport.

 

It sounds like his plane was working just fine but the fuel gauge was pointing at "E" so he ditched the plane in the Med. Pilots of commercial aircraft are supposed to make sure the aircraft actually has fuel before they take off and that takes more that just looking at a cock pit gauge. I'm surprised he only got 10 years.

Edited March 27, 2009 by waitforufo

[insane_alien]

It sounds like his plane was working just fine but the fuel gauge was pointing at "E" so he ditched the plane in the Med. Pilots of commercial aircraft are supposed to make sure the aircraft actually has fuel before they take off and that takes more that just looking at a cock pit gauge. I'm surprised he only got 10 years.

 

actually, the fuel gauge wasn't pointing at E as it was from a different type of aircraft so it was still registering that there was fuel in the tank. the pilot only knew he was out when the engines started sputtering.

 

From what i've read at that point he started praying(instead of heading for the nearest airport where it is suggested he had ample time to glide to) and then decided to ditch into choppy waters.

 

what a pilot should have done is start heading towards the airport, call in the mayday as he is doing so and ditch ONLY if it is absolutely impossible to make it, but still heading towards the shore so survivors may be able to swim to shore.

[Pangloss]

It sounds like his plane was working just fine but the fuel gauge was pointing at "E" so he ditched the plane in the Med. Pilots of commercial aircraft are supposed to make sure the aircraft actually has fuel before they take off and that takes more that just looking at a cock pit gauges. I'm surprised he only got 10 years.

 

He actually probably knew how much fuel he had (at least when he took off), he just didn't know how much fuel he was using. It's a surprisingly complex thing. You might have to fly around storms, and of course headwinds and tailwinds greatly complicate calculations. If the weather report when you leave shows X headwinds, but when you actually arrive in the area and the headwinds have changed to a higher speed, it can take a while to figure that out and then adjust your calculations to see if you still have enough fuel.

 

Computers and internet-connected information systems are changing this, but it takes time.

 

I once had to sit on a 757 at the short-runway, high-altitude Veil, Colorado airport (EGE) for an extra couple of hours because the weather at the alternate destination was bad, and they couldn't carry enough fuel to reach a different alternate destination and still take off at the current temperature. I imagine those calculations were really interesting. Eventually the pilot just gave up and flew us to Denver where we got a much larger fuel load. It just stuck in my mind because I'd never had a commercial jet pilot tell me that he couldn't put as much fuel on board as he needed to meet the FAR requirements -- it was an odd thing to hear. But of course that airport is a bit unusual.

[JohnB]

Talk about crucifying on insufficient evidence.

what a pilot should have done is start heading towards the airport, call in the mayday as he is doing so and ditch ONLY if it is absolutely impossible to make it, but still heading towards the shore so survivors may be able to swim to shore.

What isn't mentioned in the OP link is that there were 39 passengers on board with 20 survivors. It's not as if only the flight crew survived.

 

People here seem to be assuming that the pilot just ditched, rather than following all procedures.

From RTE News

The pilot sought assistance from air traffic control, asking them to alert the emergency services.

From Travel Daily News 2005.

The pilot had contacted Rome airport aviation officials just after 3 p.m. reporting engine trouble and asked permission to make an emergency landing in Palermo. Sixteen minutes later, the pilot told tower officials: We`re ditching in the sea,

So he did try to make Palermo, but finished up ditching instead. For those interested the ATR 72 aircraft has a maximum cruising speed of 280 knots. If we assume that the aircraft was flying at less than max, say 250 knots, then the pilot travelled towards Palermo for more than 60 nautical miles before ditching short of the city.

 

As the crash was 16 km off Cape Gallo (on Sicilys north coast) and Cape Gallo is a further 12 km from Palermo the aircraft ditched some 28 km short of Palermo, and this is after travelling 60 NM towards Palermo.

 

How far do people expect these things to glide?

 

Also, we have an Italian court convicting a Tunisian pilot over a crash that killed Italian tourists. Since both the Italian courts and political system are models of incorruptability and democracy it must be impossible for there to have been some form of political pressure put on the courts in favour of conviction, mustn't it?

 

I wasn't picking on you IA, it's just your post encapsulated what most here seemed to be saying. However, the pilot had declared an emergency and was heading for Palermo when the aircraft ditched.

 

WRT training as some have mentioned. Training is fine and needed, however you won't really know how you'll react until it happens. Mokeles reaction to the boa being an example. He reacted because he had spent time around the animals giving him practical experience. What would have happened if all his training was "book larnin'" and he had never actually handled a snake?

 

And just to make those in the US feel much safer. The requirement for US private pilots to demonstrate spin recovery was removed years ago, now you have to demonstrate that you know what the book says to do. But that book is a long way away when the Altimeter is dropping and the world is going around and around.

 

I should add that the requirement was dumped because too many students freaked when the book learning was put to the test and they did it for real. Why would anybody believe that these students are somehow less likely to freak simply because thay have their licence? A pilot will freak in a spin until he has learnt to master them and kows by practical application that he can do so. Training can only take you so far, after that the real world kicks in.

 

The Australian requirement is to actually put the aircraft into a spin and then recover from it. I know which pilot I feel safer flying with.

[Pangloss]

Those points do seem to change the equation quite a bit.