Judge rules Colgan 3407 recording to be used
10-21-2010, 02:37 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Posts: 988
Enough with the myth that an airline pilot faces personal liability and that his family will be left destitute in the event of a crash. As far as I can tell, not one airline pilot or airline pilot's family has ever been held personally liable or been required by any US court to pay damages. If you know different, please give facts, including names, dates, court case names, file numbers, etc.
snip
/Rant off.
snip
/Rant off.
One of my favorite books is by James Reason -- many of you are doubtlessly familiar with it. An essential read for anybody in a high-profile field like surgeon or pilot, manager, engineer, etc. Strangely enough, this book always gives me confidence as I monitor my own performance and strive to be as good a professional as I can be.
Amazon.com: Human Error (9780521314190): Reason James: Books: Reviews, Prices & more
10-21-2010, 02:37 PM
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Enough with the myth that an airline pilot faces personal liability and that his family will be left destitute in the event of a crash. As far as I can tell, not one airline pilot or airline pilot's family has ever been held personally liable or been required by any US court to pay damages. If you know different, please give facts, including names, dates, court case names, file numbers, etc.
Yes, pilots do get named in suits; that happens all the time. However, the airline (the employer) remains legally responsible for the acts of its employees. The airline (actually its insurance company) will pay the legal fees and any resulting monetary judgment. The fancy legal term for it is respondeat superior.
Consider an analogy--when is the last time you heard of someone losing their home, a widow losing her savings and possessions, a child's college fund, or all of the above, because an airline pilot (or anyone else) on the way to work caused a car crash that left a family of four all paraplegics? There are thousands of injuries and many deaths every single day from car crashes--where are all the homeless widows in the street with no possessions as a result of adverse judgments in those cases? There aren't any. It doesn't happen, because that's what insurance is for. If there is no insurance, that's what bankruptcy is for.
Yes, pilots do get named in suits; that happens all the time. However, the airline (the employer) remains legally responsible for the acts of its employees. The airline (actually its insurance company) will pay the legal fees and any resulting monetary judgment. The fancy legal term for it is respondeat superior.
Consider an analogy--when is the last time you heard of someone losing their home, a widow losing her savings and possessions, a child's college fund, or all of the above, because an airline pilot (or anyone else) on the way to work caused a car crash that left a family of four all paraplegics? There are thousands of injuries and many deaths every single day from car crashes--where are all the homeless widows in the street with no possessions as a result of adverse judgments in those cases? There aren't any. It doesn't happen, because that's what insurance is for. If there is no insurance, that's what bankruptcy is for.
A fatcat personal-injury attorney looking to ca$h in
10-21-2010, 04:38 PM
#23
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 48
I haven't spent any significant time worrying about it. We have general but self-governing rules regarding chatter / distraction. In critical phases of any operation (if I'm stopping a patient's heart, etc.) there is absolutely no extraneous talk by me or close staff, and I'm concentrating like a hawk. I do enforce that. At times it is more relaxed.
There is a permanent recording of the real time x-ray images in addition to electrical tracings from my procedures. In a suit, these could easily be pulled and used as evidence. If I missed an early accidental lung puncture, yes, that could be used as evidence. I have never missed an early lung puncture, and any that I did miss, I would hope would be so hard to see a jury would say, "yeah, I could see how even an expert would miss that."
I don't see this issue as really a fear of CVR tapes or flight recorders, but more as a fear of their misuse. Clearly, "mining" archives of flight logs, voice recorders, medical records etc., for minor or inconsequential breaches of the law would be terrible, annoying, and costly to everybody (except the lawyers). This is occasionally done in medicine, and there are even cases of "doctor-baiting" where the patient intentionally tries to mislead you into doing something wrong, or making some minor error, then suing.
At the heart of it, people know people are human, and error-mining records would be frowned upon strongly by any member of the [educated] public. As a professional, I continue to do the best I can under all conditions and am not concerned about others finding negligence in my work, because, well, I'm not negligent. If I ever am or was, I'll gladly correct my ways and pay a price, and I would want this for my patients and family members (and whenever I'm a patient too.) I'd want to know.
Have I ever made some sort of minor error? Yep. We all have. We admit this or are liars. I try to be the absolute best at what I do, but I'm not magical. This is why mining is bad, but detecting negligence is good. Negligence is a willful disregard that causes harm. Not the same as a bad outcome or a small slip / lapse.
3407 was a pretty bad situation. The captain was startled and, from all evidence I have seen, quite a poor airman. To compare this to small chatter at 9999 feet somehow ruining your family is an emotional argument, but generally a straw man, and is extremely unlikely to happen, and would find no support, again, from a hopefully reasonable educated judge and (hopefully reasonable) public.
There is a permanent recording of the real time x-ray images in addition to electrical tracings from my procedures. In a suit, these could easily be pulled and used as evidence. If I missed an early accidental lung puncture, yes, that could be used as evidence. I have never missed an early lung puncture, and any that I did miss, I would hope would be so hard to see a jury would say, "yeah, I could see how even an expert would miss that."
I don't see this issue as really a fear of CVR tapes or flight recorders, but more as a fear of their misuse. Clearly, "mining" archives of flight logs, voice recorders, medical records etc., for minor or inconsequential breaches of the law would be terrible, annoying, and costly to everybody (except the lawyers). This is occasionally done in medicine, and there are even cases of "doctor-baiting" where the patient intentionally tries to mislead you into doing something wrong, or making some minor error, then suing.
At the heart of it, people know people are human, and error-mining records would be frowned upon strongly by any member of the [educated] public. As a professional, I continue to do the best I can under all conditions and am not concerned about others finding negligence in my work, because, well, I'm not negligent. If I ever am or was, I'll gladly correct my ways and pay a price, and I would want this for my patients and family members (and whenever I'm a patient too.) I'd want to know.
Have I ever made some sort of minor error? Yep. We all have. We admit this or are liars. I try to be the absolute best at what I do, but I'm not magical. This is why mining is bad, but detecting negligence is good. Negligence is a willful disregard that causes harm. Not the same as a bad outcome or a small slip / lapse.
3407 was a pretty bad situation. The captain was startled and, from all evidence I have seen, quite a poor airman. To compare this to small chatter at 9999 feet somehow ruining your family is an emotional argument, but generally a straw man, and is extremely unlikely to happen, and would find no support, again, from a hopefully reasonable educated judge and (hopefully reasonable) public.
10-21-2010, 05:45 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 239
If this is allowed to stand, and set a legal precedent than nothing will be sacred...Sterile cockpit...absolutely! To be used for anything, BUT accident investigation defeats the entire purpose of having one next and may pave the way to make FOQA and ASAP data also vulnerable to the same exposure. A line in the sand needs to be drawn and drawn soon.
10-21-2010, 06:56 PM
#25
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
If this is allowed to stand, and set a legal precedent than nothing will be sacred...Sterile cockpit...absolutely! To be used for anything, BUT accident investigation defeats the entire purpose of having one next and may pave the way to make FOQA and ASAP data also vulnerable to the same exposure. A line in the sand needs to be drawn and drawn soon.
A judge has ruled and ALPA will claim sympathy, but demonstrate worthlessness just as always.............besides, this won't affect their personal income, so ALPA really doesn't care.
10-21-2010, 07:01 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Posts: 988
In all honesty I wouldn't have too much of a problem with anybody recording audio of my cases; most of it would be horribly uninteresting. With all patients around pretty quickly you learn never to say something behind somebody / a patient / colleague back that you wouldn't say to their face. I wouldn't want video DVD of it provided to every patient, but that is primarily because I would spend the rest of my life explaining every action to the few curious patients that would obsess over the thing.
I just read through my previous post -- I hope it doesn't appear arrogant or haughty, really didn't mean that. All I meant was that I feel recordings for forensic purposes or quality / system / individual improvement are good, almost essential, and for persecution or frivolity are extremely bad. :)
10-21-2010, 07:23 PM
#27
Administrator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
If you click on the link provided in the original post, you will see this:
Now I wasn't at the hearing and I didn't read the judge's decision. All we have is the interpretation of some reporter, who may or may not be an idiot. So in answer to JoeyMeatball's question, the jurors (as of now) will not hear it. And don't forget that it's not uncommon for judges to rule for the limited purpose of this trial.
Attorneys may hear the full, unedited cockpit recording from the Continental Connection Flight 3407 air crash as they to prepare for an upcoming federal court trial, a judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny's decision is an important win for families who filed lawsuits after losing loved ones in the Feb. 12, 2009, crash in Clarence Center.
But so far, the judge has not determined whether jurors will be allowed to hear the two-hour recording in what could become the biggest wrongful-death trial in Western New York history.
U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny's decision is an important win for families who filed lawsuits after losing loved ones in the Feb. 12, 2009, crash in Clarence Center.
But so far, the judge has not determined whether jurors will be allowed to hear the two-hour recording in what could become the biggest wrongful-death trial in Western New York history.
10-22-2010, 06:35 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 327
A grand jury was convened to determine if criminal charges should be brought against the pilots of a US Airways flight departing the runway at LGA some time back.
The point is, the law and its enforcement is constantly evolving. It's also important to note that when flying outside the US, its very possible to be held personally responsible for negligence. It is a crime in many countries. How about the disaster in Brazil involving ExcelAire?
Agreed it is a big leap to go from criminalizing a pilot's negligence abroad to holding pilots personally liable in the United States. But haven't we already seen some signs? Where can it lead?
To dismiss the possibility of holding pilots personally liable for their negligence as something that can't happen here... thats sort of like saying some banks are too big to fail.
10-22-2010, 01:17 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Posts: 988
I think its a mistake to get too comfortable. Remember ValueJet? The SabreTech case represented the first criminal prosecution in the US following an airline accident. Criminal proceedings are different from liability but the concept is the same. In addition to SabreTech being prosecuted, the maintenance supervisor and two mechanics also personally faced charges (later acquitted).
A grand jury was convened to determine if criminal charges should be brought against the pilots of a US Airways flight departing the runway at LGA some time back.
The point is, the law and its enforcement is constantly evolving. It's also important to note that when flying outside the US, its very possible to be held personally responsible for negligence. It is a crime in many countries. How about the disaster in Brazil involving ExcelAire?
Agreed it is a big leap to go from criminalizing a pilot's negligence abroad to holding pilots personally liable in the United States. But haven't we already seen some signs? Where can it lead?
To dismiss the possibility of holding pilots personally liable for their negligence as something that can't happen here... thats sort of like saying some banks are too big to fail.
A grand jury was convened to determine if criminal charges should be brought against the pilots of a US Airways flight departing the runway at LGA some time back.
The point is, the law and its enforcement is constantly evolving. It's also important to note that when flying outside the US, its very possible to be held personally responsible for negligence. It is a crime in many countries. How about the disaster in Brazil involving ExcelAire?
Agreed it is a big leap to go from criminalizing a pilot's negligence abroad to holding pilots personally liable in the United States. But haven't we already seen some signs? Where can it lead?
To dismiss the possibility of holding pilots personally liable for their negligence as something that can't happen here... thats sort of like saying some banks are too big to fail.
Yeah, true enough, perhaps I have too much "faith in our system." Exactly as you say though, other countries have a very different view on things, like that ATR pilot that ran out of fuel due to the inappropriate gauge... I think he's still in jail. IIRC they repeatedly calculated he could have reached land if he feathered the props / set the condition levers for low drag, nor got to a max glide speed, but he froze a bit and just ditched in sea. (this article is pretty poor and just talks about the prayer... I think the main issue was the prop condition status IIRC).
Tunisian pilot who prayed as his plane went down jailed in Italy | World news | The Guardian
That kind of stuff is more rare here but I guess there is a threat of that kind of mentality (somebody must be blamed) expanding here.
We'd probably need to get into a long discussion of defining words or concepts precisely, but I have no problem with people being criminally held responsible for *negligence*, but the definition we use in medicine is pretty harsh -- you would have to intentionally not do something that essentially all doctors would do and cause harm. Basically be grossly incompetent. I think all of us when we fly as pax would want grossly incompetent pilots removed from the roster.
In fact, all professionals should be held very responsible for this IMO, whether pilots, surgeons, engineers etc. This is totally different from making a mistake or having something bad happen, and a lot of people (unfortunately judges/juries too) do not really make the distinction. :(
I totally agree though, there is a risk of "mission creep" for any technology that could frivolously implicate a professional. I'm happy that there are (at least some) lawyers / organizations / lobbyists on the side of the pros.
10-24-2010, 04:44 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 276
If this is allowed to stand, and set a legal precedent than nothing will be sacred...Sterile cockpit...absolutely! To be used for anything, BUT accident investigation defeats the entire purpose of having one next and may pave the way to make FOQA and ASAP data also vulnerable to the same exposure. A line in the sand needs to be drawn and drawn soon.
Besides, Colgan doesn't have to release the tapes. All they have to do is settle the case, and the trial would be over.
Lastly, if an individual feels his cockpit discipline or knowledge of procedures is so poor that their family might be embarrassed by the release of CVR tapes or training records, they need to leave this business NOW. It's nothing less than we expect of professionals in other occupations, and what they, in turn, should expect from us.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pantera
Regional
1
02-21-2008 10:27 AM
