The ValuJet Flight 592 Crash Accident - Essay Example

Aviation Law Name Institution Aviation Law Abstract The ValuJet Flight 592 crash accident resulted to the death of 110 passengers on board and led to the prosecution of ValuJet and SabreTech mechanics where the ValuJet Flight had recently undertaken modification and maintenance. At the end, SabreTech was held responsible for the accident and was acquitted of false statements charges, destructive device charge and hazardous material charges. The main purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the validity of the topic: ‘with the exception of wilful criminal acts, an air craft accident should not be criminalised as criminalization of aviation accidents serves no useful purpose.’ The paper will review the case of ValuJet Flight 592 accident in describing the philosophy of criminalisation of aviation professionals and highlighting the substantive aviation and criminal law. It will examine the concerned of aviation criminalization by taking into consideration the safety of the aviation industry. The paper will conclude with various justifications that criminalisation of the aviation professionals negatively affects aviation safety. This sums up by reviewing a number of countermeasures being developed and will take into consideration the possibility of mitigating such criminalization trends among the aviation professionals. Introduction Civil aviation is considered the safest means of mass transportation. Various aviation accidents have taken place and aviation accident investigation reports have become the basis through which aviation professionals are prosecuted (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou, 2010). This choice of the safety and judicial processes and activities may result to a detrimental effect on general aviation safety (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou, 2010). This paper will critically analyse the criminalisation of aviation professionals using an example of a case study of the plane accident involving ValuJet Flight 592 in 1996. The paper will also discuss the impacts of criminalisation of aviation professionals on the aviation safety drawing from different literatures that debate this. Philosophy around criminalisation of aviation professionals Following the French hot air balloon crisis in 1852, the government received criminal sanctions against the pilot who led to the occurrence of the accident. Even with the model of these early aviation prosecutions, government authorities are yet to press the use of criminal law in influencing the conducts and behaviours of aviation professionals when carrying out their duties (Esler, 2009). Such hands-off reactions from the prosecutors is based largely on the sensible perception that the people involved have no intention of causing any harm in performing their duties to otherwise to take part in any criminal offence. In the event of the increase aircraft mishaps, there has been an increasing assumptions in the aviation society that federal and state prosecutors are more prone to resorting to criminal sanctions in judging the behaviour and conduct of the aviation professionals and companies (Esler, 2009). Criminal investigation and prosecutions are based on many factors. Among these factors include the statutory mandate with regard to a criminal inquest, notoriety of individuals on board and the magnitude of the accident. Criminal investigations often use the output of accidents and crash investigations in preparing indictments (Esler, 2009). The aviation professional is subject to criminal prosecutions for any violations of criminal statute (Esler, 2009). In addition, criminal violations are also instituted in judging the violations of regulations and laws prohibiting issues such as endangerment of passengers, unlicensed aerial advertising and reckless flying to name a few. The aviation professionals are bound to both federal, local and state laws (North, 2000). Under the state and local law, many states have instituted statutes that address the general operations of an aircraft. On the other hand, the federal law covers the False Statement Statute, mail and wire fraud, hazardous material transportation Act, terrorism among others. Criminal authorities have taken the responsibility of pressing charges against not only the airline and employees but also the manufacturers, designers, regulatory officials and also target the maintenance providers. For instance in the case of the accident involving ValuJet Flight 592 in 1996, the plane crashed into Florida Everglades killing all the 110 passengers who were on board (North, 2000). After the accident, NTSB and FAA teams descended upon the crash site to investigate the cause of the crash (Esler, 2009). The cause of the accident was determined to be fire in the cargo area which was fueled by oxygen generators placed in the aircraft. All the employees and the mechanics of ValuJet were interviewed with some of them, consulting attorneys. The procedure was troublesome as the federal and state authorities were also investigating the incident with the airline being the subject of the criminal investigation. The investigations by NTSB concluded that the cause of the accident was attributed to the oxygen generators which caused fire and brought down the plane (Esler, 2009). Also some erroneous paperwork were discovered which led to a search warrant execution at ValuJet and SabreTech. In July 1999, SabreTech, a company that issued mechanics to ValuJet was charged for falsifying aircraft records and placing a dangerous device aboard. In addition, the company was charged with 220 counts of murder and environmental offense. SabreTech also received a fine of $2 million and was ordered restitution in excess of approximately $9 million (North, 2000). Why aviation accidents should not be criminalized There are various reasons that justify why aviation accidents should not be considered as a criminal activity. Flights crew, day-in, day-out, risk their lives offering service to the nation through transportation in the flight deck (Amalberti, 2006). Most of times, they exercise great judgement during their operations unless they suddenly slip for example failing to declare an emergency which would lead to tragedy. Therefore, most of us want to always stay in business and protect their careers hence have no ill intentions towards others. Therefore, aircraft accidents ought not to be criminalized for it serves no use. Criminal punishment is intended to dissuade and punish the individual and the company involved and when it comes to the case of aviation accidents, the accident itself serves as a punishment for the mistake that might have been ignored or overlooked (Amalberti, 2006). Consequently, convictions don’t come as victories for prosecutors as well as the public. Cooperation and candour should be encouraged in order for the public to admit to bad judgement and mistakes hence allow the aviation industry determine what really caused the sudden down turn therefore inhibiting its occurrence (Norbjerg, 2003). Instead of chasing the individuals or companies’ by filing suits against them, having them spend the rest of their days battling the suits, it is reasonable to come to terms with the loss by honouring the victims of the misfortune and at the same time seeking measures to ensure such mistakes won’t happen again. Also, criminal sanctions in a tragic environment diverts the industry from the main objectives which is to learn more risk associated to the aviation industry and how to manage them. Many focus on filing charges on the industry for the mishaps caused by occurrence of a mistake which is due to the pain and regret inflicted onto them after their loss (Norbjerg, 2003). This then forces the aviation companies to invest a large amount of their time together with their lawyers figuring out ways of instituting liability actions rather than looking at the problem at hand which is, making their products and services as safe for all travellers as possible. In other words, if aviation companies are targets of criminal investigations, those who are directly involved with the incidence should be conceded immunity from incarceration in place of their straightforward and honest statements (Michaels, 2008). In addition, criminal sanctions do not add any value with regard to aviation safety and it is known that 85% of aviation accidents are caused by human errors (Norbjerg, 2003). Therefore, the argument “how can criminal persecution change an unintentional act?” It does not make any sense considering it a criminal offence which in turn drives the aviation company to the ground due to the numerous charges directed at the company having not solved any aviation safety concerns (Michaels, 2008). Thus, prevention is considered more important than conviction. Moreover, trends to get an individual or a company responsible for any form of aviation accidents are considered counterproductive and obstruct on going safety investigations (Michaels, 2008). At all times, criminal investigation and safety investigation clash for they have incompatible interests. The main purpose for safety investigation is to get a hold of whatever when wrong and at the same time look into more ways of ensuring the same doesn’t happen. On the other hand, criminal investigation tries to discover who is responsible for the act and what kind of punishment they deserve (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou, 2010). Thence, safety investigations are conducted to ensure that every material resources available have been put to use to collect all the facts available until all the conclusions have been exhausted. The investigators have been properly trained to handle such difficult situations in this way. The legal approach is forming a hypothesis of the situation attached with the relevant evidence that shall be used to back up the hypothesis (Michaels, 2008). Therefore, criminalization of aviation accidents will obstruct the free operations of information related to safety which in turn cause a detrimental consequence to aviation safety. Finally, aviation should not be criminalized and we should ask ourselves the question whether we are well off ensuring fairness and accession of mistakes and bad decision in order to avert other situations of loss of life rather than putting individuals and aviation companies behind bars in turn inviting more calamities (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou, 2010). Effects of criminalisation of aviation professionals The need for criminalization of aviation professionals as way of instituting justice is seen as a solution of safety and the search from causes of the occurrence of airline accidents (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou, 2010). Some people maintain that criminalisation of aviation operators for making errors in their job operations is morally justified. The greater good often befall the larger number of individuals through protecting the passengers from egregiously unreliable aviation professionals. In such a situation, greater number of people win while only for outcasts lose. Nevertheless, with regard to human factors, this may be considered utilitarianism inverted since everybody loses in an even where human error is criminalized. Criminal investigations and prosecutions of aviation professionals continue to be a huge debate on a global scale. Over the years, criminalization has been used to address commercial aviation incidents in countries such as Greece, Brazil, and Spain to name a few. There have been an increasing proliferation of criminal investigations and prosecutions in the last five years which is very concerning. According to Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou (2010), there were only around 27 criminal prosecutions of airlines accidents between 1956 and 1999 compared to about 28 incidents between 2000 and 2009. The intersection existing between the civil investigations and criminal investigations together with the tensions between their differing goals of enhancing safety in the aviation industry continues to affect the airline industry (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou, 2010). The investigation and prosecution of activities such as terrorism and intentional misconduct is considered indisputably necessary to achieving both goals. However, efforts to criminalize ordinary negligence of the aviation professionals should be recognised as having detrimental effects to the safety of the industry. The aviation safety is based on the trust placed on pilots and other aviation proffessionals during accident investigation. According to Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou (2010), the criminalisation of aviation professional tends to destroy the trust that often allows investigators identify the systematic causes of the accidents and make aviation safe as it is claimed to be. The criminalization of aviation operators interferes with available independent safety investigations in addition to destroying the willingness of individuals to voluntary notify about existing errors and violations (Michaelides-Mateou and Mateou, 2010). Therefore, criminalization destroys the development of what is called “safety cultures” that encourages honest disclosure in their practices that is required in improving quality and safety. According to Sydney Dekker (2006), incarceration and punishment of aviation professionals has no rehabilitative effect and does not make them any safer. Punishment of an individual inflicts false beliefs about safe systems where a person is the least reliable component. Blaming the aviation professional for the occurrence of accidents through criminalization lead to the ignorance of other contributions to failure and blame and punishment are considered antithetical to enhancing safety. Dekker (2006) detailed out that accountability even though it is intrinsic in human relationships cannot be termed as unambiguous or non-problematic. The ability of accountability to take many forms can create many productive and alternatives for holding people ‘accountable’. Therefore, giving an account does not have to involve exposing a person to liability but telling the story in order for others to learn vicariously. The defence of criminalisation of aviation professionals is time-consuming and also disruptive (Dekker, 2007). The individuals accused are often embroiled in long legal processes and corporate defendants are exposed. Criminal and civil actions can extend to more than 10 years after the occurrence of the accident. In addition, an individual’s personal liberty and pocketbook are at risk. Some instances occur where pilots and other aviation professionals are detained and imprisoned without clear explanation of reasons. Moreover, a company’s resources can be taxed in an event of prosecution whether it is an operator of the accident plane or maintenance operator or the manufacturer. Maintenance and operations are then guided under strict scrutiny (Dekker, 2007). Countermeasures Criminalisation of errors raises the question of who gets the authority to draw the line between what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in drawing a moral boundary (Dekker, 2006). Criminalization has exposed some difficulty in where the line between criminally liable actions and honest professional mistake should be drawn. This makes global action difficult. Various countries and industry sectors have adapted different solutions. Generally, countermeasures should focus on the development and implementation of resilient national legislation which balances both accountability and learning (Dekker, 2007). Institution of a compulsory, confidential and non-punitive reporting system for incidents involving aviation industry could be an example that will address the difficulties brought about by criminalization. Some countries have established the so-called judge of instruction who acts as a go-between before prosecution is made by checking the prosecutor’s homework and information and weighing the stakeholders’ interests (Dekker, 2007). Other initiatives which are industry and country’s specific are established and range from rallying opinion to dispute resolution, from legal protection of statements by professionals to stonewalling and mediation. Conclusion Federal and state criminal laws are put in place to give the sovereign state the power to install authority over illegal and unlawful acts committed within the aviation industry in their respective jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the utilization of such authority should be measured and balanced alongside the policy of maintaining safety in aviation industry. The need to maintain aviation safety justifies the importance of gathering and ascertaining critical information surrounding aviation accidents. Generally, criminalization of human error and negligent conducts of the aviation professionals does not necessarily improve aviation safety and cannot provide relief for the victims affected by the accidents. To start with, the fear of criminalisation of aviation accidents often impede the investigation and destabilize the cooperation of involved parties such as the manufacturers, flight crews, mechanics to name a few. Criminalisation is also time-consuming and sometimes the involved parties do not get proper justice. The criminalization of aviation professionals also interferes with available independent safety investigations in addition to destroying the willingness of individuals to voluntary notify about existing errors and violations. In the meantime, aviation industry has developed various countermeasures aimed at mitigating the impacts of criminalization. We can therefore conclude that aircraft accidents should not be criminalised since such action serves no purpose and does not result to aviation safety. References Michaelides-Mateou, S., & Mateou, A. (2010). Flying in the face of criminalization . Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Co. Norbjerg, P. M. (2003). The creation of an aviation safety reporting culture in Dan­ish air traffic control. Kastrup, Denmark: Naviair. Dekker, S. (2006). The field guide to understanding human error. Aldershot, Eng­land ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Dekker, S. W. A. (2007). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability. Alder­shot, England: Ashgate Publishing Co. North, D. M. (2000). Let Judicial System Run Its Course In Crash Cases. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 152(20), 66-67. Esler, D. (2009). Flight risk: The threat of criminalization. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 2010, from http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/jsp_includes/ar­ticlePrint.jsp?storyID=news/bca0309p1.xml&headLine=Flight%20Risk:%20The%20Threat%20of%20Criminalization. Amalberti, R. (2006). Optimum system safety and optimum system resilience: Ag­onistic or antagonistic concepts. In E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods & N. Leveson (Eds.), Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts (pp. 253-274). Al­dershot: Ashgate Publishing Co. Michaels, D. (2008, September 9). When a tragedy becomes a crime: Prosecutors probe air disasters. The Wall Street Journal, p. 17. Read More