I think we have to stop putting non-criminals into prisons. Because- when they get out- they are nearly always a hardened career criminal. And we do not need any more of those.
From the scanty but reasonable info available- it sound to me as if she was not criminally laible. However, it also sounds like she is very civilly liable. I could also see a removal of her pilots lic as another civil penalty as reasonable.
If this is the case, I would think it’s analogous to a person in a house accidently pulling the pin out of a hand grenade. Now the choice is to let it blow up inside or toss it out the window into a busy street. Hard to see the proper thing being to throw it out the window.
But the OP does say that, despite the “rush hour traffic”, the plane went 150 yards before colliding with the car. So it seems that when and where she landed it was not actually “bumper to bumper traffic”.
A pilot’s first choice for an emergency landing is never a road, but a field. Why? Because roads almost always have telephone poles and wires next to them. And to a small plane, wires are death.
She broke no laws. In that situation that is exactly what every properly trained pilot would do. Why? Because the trees mean almost certain death. The road means a good chance of surviving. And, more importantly, by landing on a road you’re not imposing an unacceptable danger to the people on the ground. This case was the exception, not the rule. In situations like it, the pilot is often killed or injured but motorists are rarely even involved.
And think of it this way. We live in a society where we allow aircraft to fly overhead. This means that, as strange as it may sound, a pilot has as much right to use a road for an emergency landing as motorists do to drive on it. And although not as likely, a Piper making an emergency landing is no less unacceptable a hazard than a tractor trailer having a blowout.
All these poor analogies. . .
I don’t like Izzy’s grenade analogy as it misrepresents what the risks were rather badly. Some of the others come pretty close, but still have something missing. . .
The best I can do: You’re approaching a red light in your car when your breaks go out. You can either blow through the intersection or slam into the telephone pole to your right. Assume that you’re going fast enough that the telephone pole would almost certainly kill you, and assume that you think you can get through the intersection w/o hurting anyone, though there is definately a chance of hitting a car or pedestrian.
That this is a split-second decision while our particular pilot was not facing one is irrelevant – in both cases, the decision would have to be made no matter how much time they had.
Do you really think it would make a difference if our driver was on his way to a circus instead of work?
I see no important distinction between this case and the case of our pilot. I also don’t see how you could hold the driver responible, criminally or ethically, for trying to blow through the intersection. Ditto our pilot and the highway.
No one takes care of even their own basic planes. They hire a comoany to do it euther by service and repair or in a long term contract.
Pilot’s have just as much right to fly to circusses as you s do to drive to them. A pilot may occassionally infringe upon a motorist’s way, but more often than not, it is going to be another motorist in the way of your car.
Secondly, why anybody is necessarily liable in cases like this is beyond me. Accidents happen, and if you take the measures required by reason to mittigate the risk posed by certain activities, then why should people who just happen to be unlucky be screwed.
Seeing how the plane was apparently improperly serviced in this case, I would agree that the business is at least partially responsible.
A nice safe landing happened on a busy freeway in my neighborhood about six months ago. No damage, no injuries.
Highway Turned Into a Landing Strip: Aerobatic pilot puts skills to use in emergency landing on highway
(SF Chronicle)
Of course, a smaller plane such as this one can land slower, even at or below traffic speeds which makes it easier.
Hail Ants
Good point. Current community standards allow the use of aircraft (for business and recreation), provided some stringent guidelines for pilot training, maintenance etc. are met. This has the inevitable consequence that some innocent bystanders will die from airplanes falling from the sky. Even a perfectly maintained aircraft, flying under the best conceivable conditions with a reincarnated Baron von Richthofen at the controls will crash if you fly it long enough. Shit happens.
As minty green pointed out, it’s even in law that a person in grave danger can put other people at risk. Which is exactly what the pilot did. “Putting at risk” means that sooner or later, people will die, that’s statistics for you.
She didn’t kamikaze that Mazda, she had the plane on the ground for 150 yards before Murphy’s law caught up with everyone. Sad ? It certainly is. Should the pilot lose her license for “failing to give up life willingly” ? No way.
S. Norman
Having been in both civil (both parents were pilots, stephfather was a pilot and AI certified mechanic) and commercial (I personally was cargo handler and assistant load master) avation, with two years of air search and rescue training. I also studied to be a pilot myself and only faild to complete my training due to a lack of funds to pay for the av gas necessary to get the last twenty hours of flight time I needed.
Posted by Zwalld
>because if she’s flying just for the hobby, then it’s a matter of choice and the risks shouldn’t be transferred to bystanders, especially in the situation described in the report, that she maintined control of the aircraft until she hit the ground.<
Does this mean that if you are taking a “sunday drive” that you should be held criminally liable for dammages incured due to an accident. Even if you had no control over the circumstances.
Posted by Zwalld
>read the report again - it wasn’t a split second decision.<
I beg to differ. If you have a catastrophic engine or mechanical failure the manuals say to put it down NOW! the more you wait to make your decision the more you endanger not just yoursel but those arround you. If you hesitate it can cause a loss of control due to droping below stall speed or loss of hydrolic pressure in larger aircraft. The pilot was told to land the plane and did as instructed by TAC. If the aircraft had stalled and droped uncontroled onto the rush hour traffic you most likely would have had more than just one fatality.
Posted by mouthbreather
>Color me impressed. I never implied that it was like pulling over to fix a flat tire. She made the decision to land on the highway. She could have decided to not do that. I’m not saying she wasn’t under high stress when she made it, and the NTSB report even said that she didn’t want to at first, and that the ATC person on the radio advised her to do it. My point is not so much that she made this choice, just that there is no legal recourse.<
The pilot did not make the decision ATC did. When ATC tells you to land you land, and right where they tell you to. As has been stated in other post she informed TAC of the traffic and was told to land anyhow. So shouldn’t TAC be held liable?
Posted by mouthbreather
>Was she negligent? In my opinion, yes.<
The pilot was not negligent She was just following standard procedures. Acording to FAA regulation small aircraft are supposed to follow hiways and roads whenever possible so that that they can maintain safe navigation. Hiways are a wonderful reference point for navigational purposes and allow for a place to land in case of emergency.
Posted by bare
>As an aside, are pilots required to carry liability insurance on their aircraft?<
Yes, and mechanics are required to carry insurance as well just incase of something like this. The aircraft went down due to mechanical failure and as such the mechanic is under civil liability for the accident.
posted by zwaldd
>there’s no way i would save my own life by directly causing the death of others unless they were my opponents in a fight. if the choices were ditch in the trees and probably kill myself or land on a highway during rush hour and likely kill one or more innocent people, i would absolutely pick the trees. and i’m not even that brave<
Had you ever concidered the fact that the fuel tanks were like only about half empty and most likly would have ignited or exploded on impact?
Posted by mouthbreather
>On a one for one, all other things being equal? No. But if you are engaged in something which has the inherent risk (flying) and you accept those risks (this plane might crash, and there’s a very good chance that I’ll die if it does)? At that point, you want to place the danger from the risk you have assumed on someone else? I’m not so sure about that one.<
Driving is far more dangerous than flying if you look at the statistics. The reason plane crashes make the news is because of their rarity. There is inherent danger in alot of hobbies that can be pass inadvertantly to others. Does this mean we should outlaw them?
copied from the NTSB report
After declaring an emergency to ATC, the pilot requested to be directed to the nearest airport. ATC indicated the airplane would be vectored toward PDK, and that there was a smaller grass strip about eight miles away. The controller said he was not sure of its location. The pilot requested information about the terrain beneath her and was advised of an interstate highway. She reported that the highway had bumper to bumper traffic and stated she did not want to land on the freeway. The pilot was advised to maintain heading and altitude, as best she could…She attempted to maintain altitude but was unsuccessful due to the reduced engine power. She added power in attempts to maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet, but was concerned about the engine falling from the airplane due to the severe vibration
Look it was dark the engine was failing and the vibration generated was such that there was the possibility of not just engine failure but loss. I find it hard to find fault with the pilot’s decisions. If ATC had been able to give an exact location and distance to the above mentioned field I might be able to see your point. However I feel that she posed a far lesser risk landing who and where she did than if she had ditched in to a group of trees some where.
threemae
i acknowledged that, but in the event the private pilot crashes due to a mechanical oversite, the pilot may be financially responible for injuries or damage to property. if the pilot wants to pass some of that liability on to his maintenance company, that would be a separate suit.
you answered your own comment:
spiny norman
that doesn’t release the plane owner or pilot from responsibility for any damage the plane causes when it crashes.
hilander10
i don’t think anyone has suggested criminal liability in this case, just legal responsibility. ‘no control’ would be like somebody cutting your brakes. however, if you were driving too fast for the conditions and hit someone, then yes, you’re legally liable. that’s why you have liability insurance. if you’re brakes simply failed from poor maintenance and you slammed into someone from behind, you’re still liable.
ok, but she or her company is still liable for damages. it was a mechanical failure on the part of the plane that ultimately resulted in the death of the mazda driver.
True enough, but it is the mechanic or company responsible for the maintaince of the aircraft that is responsible not the pilot. This is why all avaition mechanics carry insurance. I remember the constant fear that my stepdad liven in. Just the thought of having a plane he worked on go down kept him up at nights some times. I should mention that he is one of the best small plane mechanics in Alaska.
If the flight maintaince was up to date (which it looks like it was) then the maintance personel are civilly liable. If the maintaince logs were cooked then they are criminally liable. Likewise the pilot can be held criminally liable if the maintaince was bad and she flew the aircraft knowing this. I can cite personel knowlege on this subject as I watched an air cargo company (our cometition at the time) lose their entire flight crew when they found out that the logs weren’t up to snuf.
Sorry I wasn’t clear enough here. I was trying to make the point that the pilot should not be held at fault for the accident. The FAA is rather straight forward on this issue and it is the ground crew and parent company that gets nailed in the case of mechanical failures not the pilot.
Actually, the pilot will not be liable in tort at all unless she was somehow negligent in a way that caused the collision. She is not responsible for any negligence of the mechanic, unless the mechanic is also her employee (which he almost certainly is not). If the negligent mechanic was an employee of the pilot’s company, the company itself may also be liable under the legal theory of respondeat superior. But if the mechanic is an independent contractor, he’s the only one liable for any negligence.
Actually, it does. In general, the tort rule is that if there’s no negligence, there’s no liability. If something bad happens in the absence of negligence, the tort system generally chalks that up to “shit happens.”
i acknowledged waaaay back in this thread that the report indicated this was not a private flight and the pilot’s company would be liable. the ‘private pilot’ in the quote you cited was hypothetical. i was answering a tangential question.
flying a plane long enough so that it simply falls out of the sky due to decrepit parts is not negligent?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zwaldd *
**threemae
i acknowledged that, but in the event the private pilot crashes due to a mechanical oversite, the pilot may be financially responible for injuries or damage to property. if the pilot wants to pass some of that liability on to his maintenance company, that would be a separate suit.
you answered your own comment:
I the case of aircraft they are REQUIRED to have some one else do the maintaince. There are so rare cases where the pilot does his own maintaince. The reasons they are rare is due to the fact that you must have a special licens issued by the FAA to perform said maintaince. If the AI (airframe and internals) mechanic sys the plane is flightworthy then he is in effect saying that nothing is going to fail mechanicly and is accepting responsibility for any failures.This is why AI and AP (airframe and powerplant) mechanics carry insurance. If the pilot had fail to perform proper preflight checks or did something stupid like running out of gas (which has happened) then it is concidered pilot error and the pilot is liable for dammages.
I don’t know. I’m not sure why ATC is the final authority on where a failing plane should land. It seems to me that the final call should be in the hands of the pilot. I mean, what if ATC had told her to land in gridlocked traffic? Probably wouldn’t happen, but ultimately, the pilot is the one who can make the best judgement call, since they are the one with eyes on the scene, and not solely relying on a verbal description of potential landing areas. Tough call.
I’m quoting this from zwaldd’s post on page one.
Yes, I know this is speculation, but I think that there is a strong argument to be made that her not turning off the fuel switch was a large contributing factor in the explosion that resulted. I was talking again to my pilot buddy last night, and he agreed. I don’t know enough about the mechanics of planes to say this authoritatively, but I trust his input.
my point is that if i come home and find your plane in my living room and you’re alive, i expect you (or your insurance co.) to reimburse me for damages as long as you weren’t shot down. whatever arrangement you have with your mechanic as to who’s ultimately responsible is your business and you’ll need to work that out yourselves. as far as i’m concerned, as a homeowner with nothing to do with the flying business, you damaged my house, so you’re responsible for seeing that my damages are paid for. you can’t just walk away and say ‘i didn’t do it, it was my mechanic. you’ll have to call him’. if you’re flying commercially, i would seek damages from your company, and again, working out specific responsibility is their business, not mine.
and if she’s flying as an employee of a company, i would expect the company to investigate this and take whatever action they see fit. in the meantime, the company’s insurance should reimburse victims for damages and send them on their way, or else prove that the accident was caused by something completely out of their hands, like a terrorist missile or an ‘act of god’.
As I said above, no negligence = no liability. This actually reminds me of the first case (California Supreme Court, I think) I read in my law school torts class.
The defendant’s out for a Sunday drive when he has a seizure and crashes into the plaintiff’s house. The facts show that there’s no way he could have anticipated the seizure–it had been many, many years since he’d had one, and his doctor assured him that his medication would keep everything under control. Defendant takes his medication just as he’s told to, so there’s no negligence. Nevertheless, the plaintiff expects the driver (or his insurance company) to reimburse him for damages to the house. Wanna guess how it turned out? No negligence equals ____________?
that’s what i mean by an ‘act of god’ (read the rest of my previous post). a mechanical failure isn’t an act of god.
According to your own quote from the NTSB, the pilot “attempted to maintain altitude but was unsuccessful”. The ATC told her about an airstrip eight miles away but “was not sure of its location” so that’s no help. If the pilot was able to “discern dark spots in between vehicle tail lights” and the time was 6:30pm in October, it must have been dark enough that the pilot would be unable to distinguish fields and trees on the ground and therefore unable to find an unlit clearing on her own.
REGARDLESS of if the pilot had 2 seconds or 20 minutes to make a decision, the decision is the same. Unable to maintain altitude, should she attempt a dangerous landing in the only available spot or simply fly the plane as far as she can until the engine seizes up and it comes down on its own?
You haven’t provided any alternatives to landing on the highway or crashing into the trees.
You yourself said:
So if you don’t think it’s reasonable for the pilot to crash into the trees, then her only option is a controlled crash on the highway. Kind of limits her decision, dosen’t it?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by zwaldd
I also don’t see why it matters if she was flying for work, fun, or in an air show as long as she obeyed all the laws of the sky. When you have a car accident, no ones cares if you’re going to work or the video store. And this issue about safety is BS. EVERYONE knows that flying is statistically safer than driving. (There are a lot less planes in the sky than cars on the ground; cars are not checked by a mechanic every time you go for a drive, unlike planes; and pilots licenses require more rigorous training compared to drivers licenses, which any moron can get)
Quite frankly, I don’t understand your righteousness in this situation. I guess some people feel that someone always needs to be blamed. Maybe it makes them feel that we can actually control our environment and if everyone does everything right, no harm will come to us.
When an emergency happens, people have to make decisions without knowing the outcome. Sometimes they work out for the best, sometimes not. It doesn’t make sense to me to treat someone as a criminal just because they survive an accident and someone else didn’t. Personally, I would not want to live in a society that holds us criminally responsible for events that are outside of our control.
this point has been discussed and refined since it was first posted. read some of the later posts for clarification.
that doesn’t necessarily negate liability. if a terrorist bomb brings down a plane, that’s an emergency in which no one has any time to react. however, if an investigation reveals that the bomb was able to be loaded onto the plane because the airline did not follow required security procedures, then the airline is liable to the victims families. they cannot just say ‘shit happens’.