Woman Electrocuted by Wire Downed by Aircraft

dustoff17 said:
Hard to argue that you "accidentally" ran out of fuel when fuel and fuel management is such a HUGE point in all aspects of flying beginning from day one of lessons.. Baring an in-flight emergency, it's hardly a valid defense. IMO
Click to expand...


People make mistakes all the time, that doesn't make their behavior of a criminal nature.
 
FlyingAccountant said:
People make mistakes all the time, that doesn't make their behavior of a criminal nature.
Click to expand...
Agreed, however, the question in THIS situation is to what degree was the mistake made? Would a reasonable person that has a similar knowledge base do the same thing in a similar situation? These are important questions with regards to criminal action (negligence).
 
dustoff17 said:
For the sake of discussion, let's state that this is a 19 year old that is showing off, driving at a high rate of speed, and hits the power pole. High voltage line falls and kills bystander.
Click to expand...

I see these two as different: the driving case is a clear choice to operate a vehicle recklessly. The fuel starvation accident is an error of omission. A better parallel would be a young driver who doesn't see a motorcyclist while changing lanes, and the ensuing accident kills the motorcyclist.

Is it horrible? Yes.

Is it criminal? I don't believe so.
 
dustoff17 said:
Agreed, however, the question in THIS situation is to what degree was the mistake made? Would a reasonable person that has a similar knowledge base do the same thing in a similar situation? These are important questions with regards to criminal action (negligence).
Click to expand...

But this isn't a criminal case. No charges have been filed against anyone. Moreover, whose to say that same thing couldn't have happened without the crash? You can't possibly establish intent to make this criminal.
 
Avgirl said:
But this isn't a criminal case. No charges have been filed against anyone. Moreover, whose to say that same thing couldn't have happened without the crash? You can't possibly establish intent to make this criminal.
Click to expand...
Not yet....we'll see now that the victim has died.....

We'll never know because the crash DID happen.

The intent is displayed in the negligent disregard for the policies and rules.
 
dustoff17 said:
Not yet....we'll see now that the victim has died.....

We'll never know because the crash DID happen.

The intent is displayed in the negligent disregard for the policies and rules.
Click to expand...

Nope. She died right away, no charges filed. We know one side of the story and it is surprising how little pilots come to the defense of other pilots.
 
Avgirl said:
Nope. She died right away, no charges filed. We know one side of the story and it is surprising how little pilots come to the defense of other pilots.
Click to expand...
"NOPE"
Wow! What story are you talking about?
The crash was 27 June and she died on 7 July.
 
dustoff17 said:
"NOPE"
Wow! What story are you talking about?
The crash was 27 June and she died on 7 July.
Click to expand...

She was declared brain dead and officially died later I assume with her family finally choosing to take her off life support. She had zero chance of survival and he would have been charged before she died if it was deemed criminal.
 
Avgirl said:
But this isn't a criminal case. No charges have been filed against anyone. Moreover, whose to say that same thing couldn't have happened without the crash? You can't possibly establish intent to make this criminal.
Click to expand...

Intent isn't required for something to be criminal negligence. Those USMC pilots who took out the cable, sending an Italian gondola to the ground and killing 20, never intended to hit the cable, but acted in a manner so reckless as to be charged with murder (they were eventually acquitted, however).
 
Avgirl said:
My point is that there are damage limits on civil cases. It doesn't matter whose responsibility it is, and for the record, that company is being a jerk separating themselves. Deep pockets don't make a difference in civil cases.
Click to expand...

Deep pockets may not make a difference in the outcome, but they certainly make a difference in whether or not a case is brought up in the first place. My wife said her torts professor in law school said if you remember one thing from this class, it's "sue solvent parties".

No, they're not going to get anything from the pilot most likely. They'll certainly get whatever the insurance cap is, and they may decide to go after both the operator and the aircraft owner (if they're not the same entity).

Ask yourself this - if it were an American Airlines jet that ran out of fuel and killed this woman in a similar manner, would you be equally protective of the operator and pilot?

Blindly coming to the defense of pilots and operators runs very much against the safety culture we should be promoting in aviation. I left the school I was doing my multi training in several years ago because I felt it was an unsafe operation, and told as many people as I could. That school has had three pilots die since then, including two in the aircraft I was flying, and has three total hull losses.
 
My opinion would be the same regardless of it was AA or Podunk airlines. In law, you can stretch things as much as you want to, which is why our society has become so litigious, but there are several situations where cause and effect equal nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other incidents are not related to this one but another case.

What was the name of that movie series where people were going to die no matter what and they would try to cheat it but they just couldn't? Final Destination? It's sucky, but it is what it is.
 
Avgirl said:
My opinion would be the same regardless of it was AA or Podunk airlines. In law, you can stretch things as much as you want to, which is why our society has become so litigious, but there are several situations where cause and effect equal nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other incidents are not related to this one but another case.

What was the name of that movie series where people were going to die no matter what and they would try to cheat it but they just couldn't? Final Destination? It's sucky, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Except there was clearly something that could have prevented this. The pilot could have stopped and refueled, like any REASONABLE person would. REASONABLE being the standard in law.
 
Avgirl said:
My opinion would be the same regardless of it was AA or Podunk airlines. In law, you can stretch things as much as you want to, which is why our society has become so litigious, but there are several situations where cause and effect equal nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other incidents are not related to this one but another case.

What was the name of that movie series where people were going to die no matter what and they would try to cheat it but they just couldn't? Final Destination? It's sucky, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
I think the one thing you might be overlooking is the cause of the death. The CAUSE of the death is that an airplane crashed.

NOW you have to separate THAT knowledge with the question of WHY did the airplane crash?

The cause of the airplane crash is NOT something unforeseen such as a mechanical failure or bird strike, etc. These would be considered an accident. Were it a mechanical failure or "Act of God", the pilot could hardly be held responsible AND the towing company would still be in his corner. However, this is not the case here. The CAUSE of the crash (and subsequent death) is that a commercial pilot, one that performs a specific duty for a living, ran his airplane out of fuel. In doing so, he violated standard practice, and both FARs and company policies. THIS is why the company is distancing themselves and why the pilot should be held negligent in the death.

This is NOT a "Poop happens" or an "Oh well, wrong place, wrong time" situation.

@Avgirl, Would this death be different, in your mind, if the woman were a passenger in the airplane? I think NO; even in this situation, the pilot could face charges based on his negligent actions. His intentional actions fell below the expected standard for a Commercial Certificated pilot.
 
darrenf said:
Except there was clearly something that could have prevented this. The pilot could have stopped and refueled, like any REASONABLE person would. REASONABLE being the standard in law.
Click to expand...

Again, yes it could have prevented the crash, but the wire falling? Maybe not.
 
Avgirl said:
That would be too much of a stretch. No prosecutor would touch that. Unfortunately, it was just a case of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. A tree falling could have done the very same thing.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. I remember reading years ago about a guy flying a Stearman low along a river who clipped some wires. He was advertising/giving biplane rides. The plane flipped over on its back and went in the water. One of the passengers was pinned and didn't survive. The guy ended up getting charged with manslaughter IIRC and was wearing an "ankle bracelet."
 
darrenf said:
Would the wire have fallen had the plane not crashed into it? Any REASONABLE person would say no, it would not have.
Click to expand...

But again, you are only think of that incident. Think big picture, and you might see how complicated this case would be. All I can say is that there are a lot of process maps involved in any case like this...which is why litigation takes so long. Assuming that this even gets to that point. Remember, nothing has been filed.

mshunter said:
No it wouldn't. I remember reading years ago about a guy flying a Stearman low along a river who clipped some wires. He was advertising/giving biplane rides. The plane flipped over on its back and went in the water. One of the passengers was pinned and didn't survive. The guy ended up getting charged with manslaughter IIRC and was wearing an "ankle bracelet."
Click to expand...

Again, that was a passenger, so although it worked in that case, this is completely different.
 
Avgirl said:
But again, you are only think of that incident. Think big picture, and you might see how complicated this case would be. All I can say is that there are a lot of process maps involved in any case like this...which is why litigation takes so long. Assuming that this even gets to that point. Remember, nothing has been filed.



Again, that was a passenger, so although it worked in that case, this is completely different.
Click to expand...

Oh I am thinking big picture, that's why it's clear this pilot was criminally negligent. You seem to think that the fact that there exists an infinitesimally small chance that the wire could have fallen on its own presents an obstacle to this case. That is the argument you made and to which I responded.
 
darrenf said:
Oh I am thinking big picture, that's why it's clear this pilot was criminally negligent. You seem to think that the fact that there exists an infinitesimally small chance that the wire could have fallen on its own presents an obstacle to this case. That is the argument you made and to which I responded.
Click to expand...

But, he hasn't been charged. If it was that easy, he would have charges against him before she had died. He has none. He would have been charged immediately if that was the case. It isn't a criminal investigation. Don't get me wrong, this is a crappy situation, and to die as a result of that when you were supposed to spend the holiday with your family is tragic. There is no doubt that pilot was irresponsible. But, charging him for murder, especially this late in the game is not a possibility. Negligence is a guarantee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top