i30 Owners Club
OFF TOPIC => WORLD NEWS => General => Topic started by: FatBoy on June 19, 2015, 22:39:48
-
A bid by Scotland's top law officer to get air accident investigators to hand over the black box from a North Sea helicopter crash has been granted.
The cockpit voice recorder from the accident off Shetland in 2013, in which four people died, was recovered by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch.
Prosecutors had not been able to access vital data.
Judge Lord Jones said it was in the public interest and the interests of justice to make it available.
Prosecutors have been trying to establish whether anybody could be held criminally responsible for the crash.
:link: Judge rules Super Puma crash black box should be handed over - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-33198497)
Personally I don't like this decision. Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) and Flight Data Recorders (FDR) aren't there for criminal prosecution, they are there to determine the cause of an accident or incident, and therefore help prevent the reoccurrence of the event. It has been open and honest reporting to the AAIB as there was no chance of criminal prosecution using the CVR/FDR.
This, in my opinion, will encourage people not to be "open and honest" with the AAIB, as they may fear criminal prosecution for something that they may or may not have done, therefore reducing aircraft and flying safety.
Currently, pilots and engineers in a "just" system have no fear of reporting errors that may have occurred during the course of their duties, in the hope that the error does not occur again. If they fear prosecution for something they may have done, this may stop.
-
I can see the logic in your argument Jamie .. :cool:
Everything is a witch hunt these days! :fum:
-
Anyone can ask for any info on anything these days over here, with the FOI act.
-
We have a FOI act in Australia too, but it only applies to Government information that isn't protected (classified information, or CVR/FDR, etc). It must be similar in the UK, otherwise this news article wouldn't be news.
-
It is a worrying sign.
Those in charge of any vessel have a duty of care to themselves and their passengers. The initial responsibility is with the employer, to ensure that adequate training is provided before taking command. Once completed and passed, the individual is rated to conduct activities which the employer allows.
In the event of an accident where the employer or equipment can not be faulted, it would appear in the future that liability for damages may eventually filter back to the individuals in command. :fum:
-
What happens if the pilots were following normal procedures (which from all accounts they were) but made a slight error of judgement at the end? From the investigation it is determined that procedures should change to stop this happening again. We practised this exact event in the simulator, with a different outcome (our procedures are now different to what they were). Thanks to open and honest reporting, our procedures changed very quickly. If the pilots, crew, engineers and air traffic control have a fear that anything they say may result in criminal prosecution, then they will "zip lip" and not reveal anything to anybody. As they have the right to do.
-
I'm with Fb on this one. :goodjob:
-
Me 2
-
It should never have been allowed to go anywhere other than the investigating police in the first place.
How is that data any different to say the GPS tracking data and dash cams fitted by a company to a truck. You had better believe that all of this data would be seized in a heart beat in a serious accident. If said truckie is at fault, and a charge can be proven you had better believe he or she is on their way to the Dock, and possibly jail.
It is nice to believe that the air crew would always tell the truth in the interests of air safety. But when faced with losing their jobs, civil action and loss of reputation, fact is the truth will be bent as far as it can be.
-
The CVR/FDR should not go beyond the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB), police don't get involved with this data at all.
The data is different as it classed as "protected information" and can only be used by the AAIB until this ruling.
If it is found that you have violated a rule or regulation (ie. Deliberate act) then you can lose your job or be prosecuted. If it is an error (not deliberate act) then you won't be, and things will be put in place to hopefully stop it happening again. That is why pilots and aircrew up until now were happy with the procedures. Now pilots may face civil action (reasonable probability) and criminal action (beyond reasonable doubt) for complying with current practises and procedures.
Aircraft crash investigations aren't pleasant experiences at the best of times (from personal experience). Fearing criminal or civil action probably will encourage pilots to invoke their right of silence. Therefore increasing the likelihood of the event happening again.
Believe me, pilots are monitored enough in the aircraft with HUMS (an automatic data recorder used for maintenance) which lets the engineers and managers know of any exceedence of the aircraft.
-
I'm with Fb on this one. :goodjob:
A big +1 on that
-
I'm not seeing any argument here. We're all saying releasing the data for criminal investigation degrades the effectiveness of the entire ACI process of today. I prefer to see it stay protected.
-
I'm not seeing any argument here.
Where's Rusty :mrgreen:
-
I'm here.... :)
-
What I see is a double standard.
There are plenty who make errors that amount to criminal negligence and pay the price for it. Why should those who fly planes be treated any different to those who drive buses or trucks?
-
When trucks and buses can fall out of the sky for no apparent reason we'll talk...... Not a very good analogy. Aircraft are so different, there's a reason it costs so much to become a (commercial) pilot AND...... there's so much that can go wrong.
Land-bound vehicles have (normaly) one axis of movement, planes have three.
-
What I see is a double standard.
There are plenty who make errors that amount to criminal negligence and pay the price for it. Why should those who fly planes be treated any different to those who drive buses or trucks?
They still can be, the prosecutors aren't allowed to use the CVR/FDR as evidence for their investigations though. They must use other evidence, eg. eye witness reports, maintenance documents, etc.
No double standards at all, if buses and trucks had the equivalent of CVR/FDR and used them in the same way as aviation, then they would be protected too.
-
I remember reading in Aviation Safety Digest about the Pan Am pilots that crashed a 727 in the 70's well short of the runway. According to CVR, they were discussing America's economy whilst on descent. Clearly a case of criminal negligence. They and many others, paid the ultimate price. As it was reported in the official Oz Digest, it was obviously common knowledge in the industry. If they survived, would they have been prosecuted :question:
-
I remember reading in Aviation Safety Digest about the Pan Am pilots that crashed a 727 in the 70's well short of the runway. According to CVR, they were discussing America's economy whilst on descent. Clearly a case of criminal negligence. They and many others, paid the ultimate price. As it was reported in the official Oz Digest, it was obviously common knowledge in the industry. If they survived, would they have been prosecuted :question:
Because of incidents like that, my company now have a "sterile cockpit" during approaches and/or below 1000' Above Ground Level (AGL). This means that the only things that can be discussed are what is actually happening in the aircraft (speeds, rates of descent, profiles, next event, not below heights, etc.)
As for this particular case (the 727), if it was common practise in other aircraft with the company or industry to discuss other things on approach, then it wasn't criminal negligence, it was bad SOPs. These have now been corrected, at a high cost to the passengers and crew. Remember that SOPs (standard operating procedures) don't need to be written down.
-
Sadly, the "pilots" were spot on, they forecast the GFC well ahead of professional "economists"
-
Sadly, the "pilots" were spot on, they forecast the GFC well ahead of professional "economists"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I have successfully forecast six of the last two recessions.
-
Suggest you stick to aviating, Fatboy. :lol:
-
I like how in aviation they seem to genuinely learn the lessons from previous experience and improve procedures worldwide in response.
It seem to work well as far as this layman can see.