Platinum Challenger 600 Accident - Essay Example

Aviation Law 2 Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Abstract Platinum Challenger 600 accident. The accident occurred in February 2005 when a Bombardier Challenger CL-600 ran off the before taking off at the Teterboro Airport in New Jersey. Apparently, the crew abandoned take off following the plane’s failure to rotate. The aircraft cut through a perimeter fence, intersected through a six-lane highway, and then rolled in a parking lot to finally settle inside a building. The airplane did not cause any deaths but led to serious and minor injuries to the crew, pilots, and others. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) initiated investigations and determined that the possible cause of the accident was the pilot’s failure to guarantees that the airplane was not overloaded with certified weight-and-balance limits and their effort to take off while the center of gravity was beyond the forward border, which barred the plane from rotating. The purpose of this essay is to explore the implications of blaming the pilot who committed the ‘active error’. Through this analysis, the paper will focus on illustrating why criminalizing aviation accidents serves no purpose. It considers the philosophy behind criminalization of aviation accidents, the issues raised in the Platinum Challenge accident, the implications of criminalizing the pilot to safety and how it affects aviation safety. Aviation Law 2 Introduction The aviation industry has faced increased challenges especially when it comes to criminalization of aviation accidents. Pilots and aviation operators find themselves on trial over accidents that are clearly unintentional or caused by lack of effective safety standards. The following essay aims at discussing the statement “With the exception of willful criminal acts, an aircraft accident should not be criminalized as criminalization of aviation accidents serves no useful purpose”. The essay aims to illustrate why criminalizing aviation accidents does not serve any purpose since it does not enhance aviation safety or offer relief to victims. The essay will analyze Platinum Jet, Challenger 600 accident and the criminal charges brought against the pilot and the directors of flight charter and maintenance. Through the analysis of this accident and prosecution of the pilot, the essay will discuss why such criminalization serves no useful purpose to enhancing aviation safety. Body Internationally, there is a philosophy around aviation accidents where people jump into conclusions that aviation accidents are criminal acts. However, in countries such as America, the omissions or acts that contribute or cause to aviation accidents are normally not the agenda of criminal prosecutions. The trend of criminalization has grown increasingly in the past few decades (Bartsch, 2014). There is a fundamental tension between accident investigations and the possibility of criminal prosecutions for actors involved in aviation accidents. According to the ICAO Annex 13, the only purpose or need of accident investigations is to prevent incidents and accidents in future (Solomon & Relles, 2011). Moreover, it also states that investigations are not intended to allocate liability or blame. Accidents are unintended and unforeseen events meaning they should not be investigated for the purpose of finding a crime or offence. Accident investigations are required to uncover the facts and determine the contributing and probable causes as well as develop safety recommendations (Bartsch, 2014). It is in this process that aviation accidents have been tied to criminal investigations where aviation agencies end up offering findings that can be used to allocate liability and blame to pilots and operators. Nonetheless, as the rate of aviation accidents reduces globally, the rate of criminal prosecutions is on the rise. One of the main examples of the philosophy behind aviation accidents is the Platinum Challenger 600 accident. The accident occurred in February 2005 when a Bombardier Challenger CL-600 ran off the before taking off at the Teterboro Airport in New Jersey (Dunn, et al., 2008). Apparently, the crew abandoned take off following the plane’s failure to rotate. The aircraft cut through a perimeter fence, intersected through a six-lane highway, and then rolled in a parking lot to finally settle inside a building (Dunn, et al., 2008). The airplane did not cause any deaths but led to serious and minor injuries to the crew, pilots, and others (Dunn, et al., 2008). The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) initiated investigations and determined that the possible cause of the accident was the pilot’s failure to guarantees that the airplane was not overloaded with certified weight-and-balance limits and their effort to take off while the center of gravity was beyond the forward border, which barred the plane from rotating (Dunn, et al., 2008). The department of justice filed criminal charges for fraud, conspiracy, and jeopardizing flight safety by overloading aircrafts with fuel and fabricating flight logs to the flight and maintenance directors as well as the pilot. Both the pilot and one of the directors were convicted by the jury for prison sentence. The consequences of the accident were jail terms of four years for the pilot and director while the company faced increased reputational damages and fines for the injured victims (Dunn, et al., 2008). NTSB also issued several recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration. The issues presented in this accident present the main idea behind aviation accident criminalization. Although the case of Platinum Challenger has numerous aspects of crime, it does not mean that the actions of the pilot were based on willful misconduct, criminal negligence, or terrorism. The main standpoint here is that criminalizing aviation accidents tends to serve no purpose since it does not produce any potential benefits to the aviation industry including pilots, owners, and stakeholders (Dekker, 2011). The main challenge in such cases is when accidents are turned into crime scenes. Prosecutors have a tendency to assume that pilots intentionally act or omit certain acts to cause harm and loss of property. According to Bartsch (2014), the tendency has targeted pilots to corporate officers. Criminal prosecution has overtaken what are simply tragic accidents. Mistakes cannot be taken for willful actions or intended acts of crime. When mistakes occur, accidents happen and due to the nature of the damages and safety requirements in the aviation industry, people tend to believe that these are acts of crime. The result of increased criminalization of aviation accidents has developed into a culture. However, the process and purpose of accident investigation and criminal investigations are two varying cultures. Issues such as evidence are common in criminal investigations while accident investigations rely on facts. Prosecutors usually practice discretion where they claim to only pursue the most egregious cases (Learmount, 2010). However, these criminal investigations and prosecution do not accomplish the purpose of enhancing aviation safety. Much focus is being placed on finding someone to blame for an accident rather than find the cause of the accident and place measures to ensure that it does not reoccur (Learmount, 2010). The basis of criminalizing aviation accidents is to deter similar accidents from occurring. However, putting some in jail such as a pilot cannot deter other pilots from causing an accident. According to veteran attorney Kenneth Quinn, familiar with aviation law and cases argues that criminal prosecution and agency action is not enough to deter accidents from happening as all pilots/operators know that they cannot do anything to cause an accident since they may die (Solomon & Relles, 2011). This is not the same case where a criminal decides to kill a person while he knows he may be jailed or put on death row. Criminals can be deterred by criminal prosecutions and verdicts, but pilots may not be in a position not to cause accidents even after being criminalized. In this case, there is no need for criminalizing the pilot since it serves no useful purpose. The main purpose of such investigations should be to ensure that the facts are laid out and recommendations can be developed to prevent similar incidents from occurring (Solomon & Relles, 2011). The Platinum Challenger 600 accident illustrates no willful actions taken by the pilot by routinely engaging in concealing loading and flight logs. However, the prosecution found the pilot to have committed crime by engaging in such activities. It is also difficult to understand the basis of the verdict based on the fact that the omitted actions or requirements are not subject to violation of any laws that warrant an arrest and the need for conviction. Overall, the need to find a level playing field between accident investigations and criminal prosecution is needed to advance safety in aviation. Criminalizing the pilot in most aviation accident cases does affect aviation safety. In almost all cases, criminalizing the pilot/operator does affects aviation safety negatively. Increased criminalization of pilots may be an actual threat to safety enhancement programs as well as a danger to safety in aviation. Mega verdicts and media coverage of aviation accidents can easily affect access to critical information. Numerous programs in America such as the Aviation Safety Action Plan and the Flight Operations Quality Assurance may be at risk from the criminalization of pilots (Dekker, 2010). This is because organizations may deter from disclosing certain information that they consider could be legally risky or could be used by the prosecution. The lack of sharing such information is increasing the likelihood of accidents occurring since safety programs are developed with the purpose of detecting unsafe practices and operational deviations that contribute to aviation accidents. Even pilots may withhold critical information needed by aviation accident investigators to determine the probable cause of the accident and develop safety measures to avoid a similar accident or incident (Dekker, 2010). According to Michaelides-Mateou & Mateou (2010), safety lessons cannot be learnt when everyone is scared of report a mishap or error. Pilots and operators are therefore working under the threat of prosecution meaning that any opportunity to covers errors will come at an advantage. Therefore, withholding vital information acts as a barrier to enhancing safety in the aviation industry. Increase in the trend will only serve to weaken the potential and opportunity of safety authorities to better understand and improve aviation safety Michaelides-Mateou & Mateou (2010). As such, there is no use in criminalizing the pilot since it will influence the flow of information. In addition, the threat of prosecution also reduced the willingness of pilots to cooperate or take part in accident investigations. Pilots who may face prosecution may not be willing to cooperate with safety investigators, thus missing the opportunity to correct the mistakes. According to Dekker (2003), criminalizing the pilot is the same as criminalizing an error. Convicting pilots such as in the case of Platinum Challenge 600 accident also has no personal rehabilitative effect. This is because when accidents occur, pilots have nothing to rehabilitate since what they did was an error. These types of errors can be learned and changed in no time. The basic tension here is between punishment and learning. The criminalization of pilots may be viewed as a step towards learning or punishment. When the pilot is put on trial, beliefs about safety can easily change where people will tend to believe that humans are the real challenge to safety (Dekker, 2010). Nonetheless, criminalization seems to be more of a punishment rather than learning. Even the intended purpose of accident investigations is promoting learning for enhanced safety. Nonetheless, punishment through criminalization illustrates that failures or mistakes are deviant and are not natural to humans (Dekker 2003). However, the aspect of learning means that mistakes and failures are normal for humans who focus on success (Dekker 2003). The act of criminalizing pilots tends to develop an assumption that certain people such as pilots have flaws (Dekker 2003). This is a contradiction since accidents can happen to anyone therefore such acts only weaken the gains of safety. Once again, prosecuting pilots serves no benefits. Even the jailing of pilots or operators does not guarantee that the accident may not happen again. Even through there has never been a similar accident to the Platinum challenger, part of the solution is in the recommendations from the NTSB. However, the criminal prosecution part did not offer any solutions to preventing a similar accident from occurring. It is only a type of punishment is counter-productive. Another negative effect on safety is the focus on pilot that enables other possible causes to be ignored Michaelides-Mateou & Mateou (2010). Based on the legal systems and procedure in America, the NTSB was able to find flaws in the organizational operations of Platinum Jet. However, the court did not find the company responsible for having flawed operations and misconduct in management. When the pilot is put on trial the liability shifts from the company or its flawed management practices (Dekker, 2010). As the case of Platinum, the organization entered into an illegal contract to own a certain license that they clearly were not cleared to own. The management practices had significant implications to how the pilots operated. Moreover, the NTSB also found that the probable cause of the Platinum Challenger accident was inefficient training of pilots (Dunn, et al., 2008). This finding was not used by the prosecution since only one director and the pilot were convicted for causing the accident. This tends to affect safety since big corporations or the bigger problem is left unaddressed. Management flaws unlike human mistakes may take several months or years to change (Dunn, et al., 2008). However, criminal prosecution of pilots does not seem to realize the need for finding the root or long-term problems in order to avoid similar mistakes. Criminalizing pilots only serves to protect the organization and key leaders in higher places who through their actions contributed to the accident even though not in a willful manner. A mistake in professional duty is often and in other industries it does not lead to increased criminalization. However, for the aviation industry, mistakes lead to prosecuting that may cause long-term career and professional repercussions. Most pilots who face trial can easily face challenges in getting re-employed in the industry. Moreover, such pilots face increased challenges in dealing with their situations. According to Dekker (2010), pilots are likely to face depression, anxiety, and psychological related illnesses. This is because the process and scope of criminalization of aviation accidents is enormous based on media coverage and political forces as well as public opinion. The memory of causing an accident and being punished for it may not disappear from a pilots head soon. Therefore, such convicted pilots may face emotional challenges. Conclusion Accident investigations are required to uncover the facts and determine the contributing and probable causes as well as develop safety recommendations. It is in this process that aviation accidents have been tied to criminal investigations where aviation agencies end up offering findings that can be used to allocate liability and blame to pilots and operators. However, criminal prosecution and agency action is not enough to deter accidents from happening as all pilots/operators know that they cannot do anything to cause an accident since they may die. Criminalizing the pilot has negative effects on the issue of safety since it obstructs access to information needed to correct the mistakes through safety measures. Moreover, it also reduces the chances of addressing the main challenge such as organizational liability. It also personally affects pilot’s professional career and wellbeing. Overall, criminalization of aviation accidents serves no purpose, but only does more harm to the goals of enhancing safety. References Bartsch, R. I. (2014). International Aviation Law. Journal of Airport Management, 8(1), 89-89. Dekker, S. (2003). When human error becomes a crime. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 3, 83-92. Dekker, S. (2010). Pilots, controllers and mechanics on trial: Cases, concerns and countermeasures. Dekker, S. (2011). The criminalization of human error in aviation and healthcare: A review. Safety science, 49(2), 121-127. Dunn, R. M., Colombo, S. M., & Nold, A. E. (2008). Criminalization in Aviation-Are Prosecutorial Investigations Relegating Aviation safety to the Back Seat. Brief, 38, 11. Learmount, D. (2010). Criminalization of air accidents: The solutions may be forged in Europe. Air and Space Law, 35(4), 325-329. Michaelides-Mateou, S., & Mateou, A. (2010). Flying in the face of criminalization. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co. Solomon, E. D., & Relles, D. L. (2011). Criminalization of Air Disasters: What Goal, if Any, is Being Achieved. J. Air L. & Com., 76, 407. Read More