Aircraft has slid off runway at MDW

[Bumpman]

Well, Steve Cowell seems reasonalbly articulate. He's a retired pilot that "trained with SWA".

What's that mean?

It means he got his 737 type rating at SWA. I know Steve personally, not that I am proud of that fact; but he "used" to fly at my airline. I was not aware that he was retired. Learn something new every day.

 

[FN FAL]

You're trying to superimpose your televison based perception of the definition of the word homicide into something it is not. Illinois has a legal definition of the word "homicide". It would be simple to look it up.

On the crash...

I never accused the pilots of anything...a person died, the death was due to an act. If the end result is that mechanics didn't put the nut that holds the tiller wheel on the shaft properly and it came off, then the mechanic is the one that "ignored" and that "act" resulted in an unnatural death = reckless homicide.

If they find out that the plane that landed ahead of the SWA 737 sprayed skydrol all over the place causing the SWA airliner to lose control, then they got the criminal negligence problem, as whoever is responsible for that, is going to have to face the music in criminal court.

If the thrust reverser failed because of a design flaw...then the manufacturer could face criminal negligence prosecution.

What I'm telling you is, that a) a death from unnatural causes is a homocide and b) prosecutors may be compelled by law to file reckless homicide charges.

As for the feds finding the pilots 'reasonable and prudent' wtf is that? I could see it reasonable and prudent for them to want to get in on time, but if they were unstable on final and ignored that fact, there's your intent.

I would be willing to bet a paycheck that "criminal negligence" laws came about as a direct result of drunk drivers using the "I was to drunk too know what I was doing when I was plastered, so you cannot get me for intentionally killing that guy laying under my car!"

However...by ignoring what can happen when you knowingly took that first drink on the way to getting drunk, you ignored. Go back up and look at the definition from illinois state law on reckless homicide if you don't understand the "ignored" analogy.

Once again, I'm not saying the SWA crew did anything wrong. I'm just telling you that once the boy was pronounced dead, the homicide investigation begins. And just because there is an airplane involved, that does not grant any "diplomatic immunity" from prosecution to the flight crew, the people who took the MU readings, ATC, the SWA airlines as a corporation, the people that may have sullied the runway prior to SWA landed (hypothetical example), the people that maintained the plane, the people that designed the plane.

 

[FN FAL]

I didn't realize how many FI-ers had law degrees, and specialized in criminal defense....



To prosecute for a criminal violation, two things must exist

MENS REA - the mental state of the violator and his intention

ACTUS REAS - the actual action itself

BOTH must exist for a prosecution (or should I say a successful prosecution)

Example

Joe, aware that his car has an exhaust leak, asks his ex-girlfriend to go with him to the store. He enters the store and tells her to stay inside, knowing she will be dead in 15 minutes. She dies and Joe gets prosecuted, because he has intent (he wanted to kill her) and he completed the action (he physically got her into the car and told her to remain in the car). Joe would not have been prosecuted if one of these elements did not exist.

Larry, is headed to the store in his beat up jalopy, his only car available, and his baby needs formula, so he has no choice. His neighbor, Cindy, would like to go the store and she joins him. Upon arrival, Cindy asks him to buy some milk and she will stay in the car and listen to her song on the radio. Unfortunately, an exhaust leak kills Cindy. Larry is not prosecuted since no intent exists nor criminal action to carry out the intent.

I am 105% sure the flight crew did not intend to kill anybody, and the "action" itself was an accident and not of an intended proactive effort to carry out criminal action.

end of story

Civil lawsuits are an entire different animal as is FAA penalties and fines

But there is nothing criminal here

IL homicide definition

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+9&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=29493&SeqStart=10800&SeqEnd=11700&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E

Sat pak, you are wrong, you don't need intent for either the involuntary manslaughter or wreckless homicide found in 720 ILCS 5/9-3...Involuntary means you didn't intend for something to happen...

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AND RECKLESS HOMICIDE​

(unintentional or reckless act resulting in death)720 ILCS 5/9-3

Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.


(a) A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all‑terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide.

The punishment is the same for involuntary manslaughter as reckless homicide, in fact if you read some of the state court cases, you'll see where the judges consider them the same for the purposes of "double jeopardy".

 

[Guitar rocker]

You're 100% correct. Trans States threatens with the "death penalty".

Does Hulas still run the show over there? I would love to buy him a nice big 20 oz. steak. That place was something else.

 

[jumppilot03]

Just to continue with the illinformed media. Apparently the NTSB is also misinformed. On CNN the NTSB spokesperson stated that they are looking at the Cockpit Video Recorder. I guess I must have missed the memo as to when ALPA agreed to having video recorders in the cockpit.


I am on reserve and have not worked in 2 weeks. Boredom has definintly kicked in.

 

[atrdriver]

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AND RECKLESS HOMICIDE​

(unintentional or reckless act resulting in death)720 ILCS 5/9-3

Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.


(a) A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all‑terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide.

The punishment is the same for involuntary manslaughter as reckless homicide, in fact if you read some of the state court cases, you'll see where the judges consider them the same for the purposes of "double jeopardy".

But your definition states clearly that the act must be performed recklessly. If it is shown that they flew a normal stabilized approach, and followed the procedures that a reasonable and prudent pilot would follow, then they don't ahve anything to worry about. You are correct that if they were reckless or negligent in some way then they may in fact have something to worry about. Either way, the data will come from the NTSB in the form of CVR and FDR, and a prosecutor would be a fool to try to start anything before that data is available.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Just to continue with the illinformed media. Apparently the NTSB is also misinformed. On CNN the NTSB spokesperson stated that they are looking at the Cockpit Video Recorder. I guess I must have missed the memo as to when ALPA agreed to having video recorders in the cockpit.


I am on reserve and have not worked in 2 weeks. Boredom has definintly kicked in.

Not being picky here, but SWA is not ALPA, they have their own in-house union. I have not seen anything in print or otherwise having video cameras in the front.

 

[satpak77]

Sat pak, you are wrong, you don't need intent for either the involuntary manslaughter or wreckless homicide found in 720 ILCS 5/9-3...Involuntary means you didn't intend for something to happen...

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AND RECKLESS HOMICIDE​

(unintentional or reckless act resulting in death)720 ILCS 5/9-3

Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide.


(a) A person who unintentionally kills an individual without lawful justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts whether lawful or unlawful which cause the death are such as are likely to cause death or great bodily harm to some individual, and he performs them recklessly, except in cases in which the cause of the death consists of the driving of a motor vehicle or operating a snowmobile, all‑terrain vehicle, or watercraft, in which case the person commits reckless homicide.

The punishment is the same for involuntary manslaughter as reckless homicide, in fact if you read some of the state court cases, you'll see where the judges consider them the same for the purposes of "double jeopardy".

actually, I am right. The term "homicide" was asked about, not reckless homicide nor involuntary manslaughter nor anything else

 

[Makesheepnervus]

Just out of curiosity I ran the Landing distance numbers on the computer program I use for the Gulfstream II that I fly. The factored wet runway distances came out as follows:

Runway 31C = 5,938ft (5,826 available)
Runway 13C = 5,123ft (6,060 available)
Runway 4R = 5,123ft (5,928 available)

Obviously the numbers for a boeing 737 would be different but it is interesting to see the effect that a "light" tailwind component vs a light headwind component can have on the distances. (815ft in this case)

 

[LarryinTN]

NTSB says touchdown was at 132 knots which sounds pretty reasonable. That would be about right in the DC9s that I fly. Tailwind was 7 to 8 knots. The braking action was reported as fair for most of the runway, poor for the far end. I'm guessing that it was something like fair for the first two-thirds, poor for the last one-third unless it was given based on taxiway intersections. The report wasn't specific.

 

[FN FAL]

But your definition states clearly that the act must be performed recklessly. If it is shown that they flew a normal stabilized approach, and followed the procedures that a reasonable and prudent pilot would follow, then they don't ahve anything to worry about. You are correct that if they were reckless or negligent in some way then they may in fact have something to worry about. Either way, the data will come from the NTSB in the form of CVR and FDR, and a prosecutor would be a fool to try to start anything before that data is available.

No, they probably wouldn't jump to a conclusion when all that "free" detective work is being done by the NTSB.


Once again, I'm not saying that anybody on the flight was or is guilty of anything, I'm just pointing out the risk that we as pilots, motorists, lawnmower and mopded drivers face as "motor vehicle operators" in this new era of "intentless" crimes...and most states have these on the books.


Sadly, the child's life was lost and I do hope for the flight crew that there is a causal factor that was outside of their control in this incident.



Below is Illinois's definition of "act", "reckless" and "negligent" right out of their state code:

T(720 ILCS 5/2‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑2)

Sec. 2‑2. "Act".
"Act" includes a failure or omission to take action.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑6)
Sec. 4‑6. Recklessness.
A person is reckless or acts recklessly, when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, described by the statute defining the offense; and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. An act performed recklessly is performed wantonly, within the meaning of a statute using the latter term, unless the statute clearly requires another meaning.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑7)
Sec. 4‑7. Negligence.
A person is negligent, or acts negligently, when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow, described by the statute defining the offense; and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/il/law/felonmisdem.html#60


Guide to Illinios Law: Felonies

The most violent crimes, such as murder and rape, as well as white collar crimes, generally are felonies under the Illinois Criminal Code.

Crimes Causing Harm to Persons

Homicide and Suicide

Homicide is the unlawful killing of another human being. There are several types of homicide: murder, manslaughter, and reckless homicide. All forms of homicide are felonies.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another with intent to kill. Murder is divided into subcategories by degree of seriousness. First degree murder is killing someone with intent to kill or to cause great bodily harm, or knowing that one's actions will cause death or create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.

First degree murder also includes unlawful killing during the commission of a forcible felony.

Second degree murder is similar to first degree murder, except at the time of the killing the offender has the unreasonable belief that the killing is justified, or the offender is acting under an intense and sudden passion resulting from being provoked.

Manslaughter and reckless homicide differ from murder because these crimes do not require proof of intent. Under Illinois law, involuntary manslaughter is unintentionally killing another person while engaged in an action that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the action is done recklessly. However, if the cause of death is by a person recklessly driving a motor vehicle, the crime is called reckless homicide.

Suicide is taking one's own life. Suicide and attempted suicide no longer are crimes in Illinois. However, it is a crime to induce another to commit suicide.

 

[satpak77]

No, they probably wouldn't jump to a conclusion when all that "free" detective work is being done by the NTSB.


Once again, I'm not saying that anybody on the flight was or is guilty of anything, I'm just pointing out the risk that we as pilots, motorists, lawnmower and mopded drivers face as "motor vehicle operators" in this new era of "intentless" crimes...and most states have these on the books.


Sadly, the child's life was lost and I do hope for the flight crew that there is a causal factor that was outside of their control in this incident.



Below is Illinois's definition of "act", "reckless" and "negligent" right out of their state code:

thats fine but pilots are not motor vehicle operators under IL statute

"Vehicle" defined under said code

(625 ILCS 5/1‑217) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1‑217)
Sec. 1‑217. Vehicle. Every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway or requiring a certificate of title under Section 3‑101(d) of this Code, except devices moved by human power, devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks and snowmobiles as defined in the Snowmobile Registration and Safety Act.
For the purposes of this Code, unless otherwise prescribed, a device shall be considered to be a vehicle until such time it either comes within the definition of a junk vehicle, as defined under this Code, or a junking certificate is issued for it.
For this Code, vehicles are divided into 2 divisions:
First Division: Those motor vehicles which are designed for the carrying of not more than 10 persons.
Second Division: Those vehicles which are designed for carrying more than 10 persons, those designed or used for living quarters and those vehicles which are designed for pulling or carrying property, freight or cargo, those motor vehicles of the First Division remodelled for use and used as motor vehicles of the Second Division, and those motor vehicles of the First Division used and registered as school buses.
(Source: P.A. 92‑812, eff. 8‑21‑02.)

Aircraft defined by the State of IL

(620 ILCS 5/3) (from Ch. 15 1/2, par. 22.3)
Sec. 3. "Aircraft" means any device used or designed to carry humans in flight as specified by the Department by rule. All devices required to be licensed as "aircraft" by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1995 are "aircraft". The Department may, by rule, specify the extent to which aircraft not required to be licensed by the FAA are subject to the provisions of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 89‑345, eff. 1‑1‑96.)

 

[mar]

I can only think of one case

And just because there is an airplane involved, that does not grant any "diplomatic immunity" from prosecution to the flight crew, the people who took the MU readings, ATC, the SWA airlines as a corporation, the people that may have sullied the runway prior to SWA landed (hypothetical example), the people that maintained the plane, the people that designed the plane.

I agree, no one is immune from criminal prosecution but there is a strong tradition in this country of not making criminal accusations in aviation, because if they did, all somebody would need to do is plead the Fifth, and suddenly the investigation is shot to hell. The NTSB in particular is strongly opposed to the criminalization of aircraft accidents. It would make their mission almost impossible.

In the ValueJet accident there were a few criminal prosecutions but I think everyone agrees the subcontractor was *grossly* negligent.

After all, this isn't Singapore where spitting on the sidewalk is a criminal act. Ok, I exaggerate a little but you get my point.

Some interesting reading:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw106-105.000/hpw106-105_1.HTM

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_rec/proceedings/authors/fenwick.htm

 

[100LL... Again!]

If criminal legal action is taken against the pilots, I recommend an industry-wide walkout. THAT should put an end to it.

 

[FN FAL]

If criminal legal action is taken against the pilots, I recommend an industry-wide walkout. THAT should put an end to it.

Wouldn't that act place all those pilots in violation of federal law?

 

[minitour]

Wouldn't that act place all those pilots in violation of federal law?

It's a violation of federal law to not go to work?

-mini

 

[100LL... Again!]

It would be worth it, though. I'd do it.

There are three things that I think would be worth an industry-wide walkout.

1) Cabotage
2) Criminalization of aircraft accidents chargeable to the flight crew
3) Cameras in the cockpits

 

[FN FAL]

It would be worth it, though. I'd do it.

There are three things that I think would be worth an industry-wide walkout.

1) Cabotage
2) Criminalization of aircraft accidents chargeable to the flight crew
3) Cameras in the cockpits

Keep in mind that over half of the replacement workers that crossed the picket lines at NWA, were NWA employees at the time of the MX strike.

 

[100LL... Again!]

So noted.

A body stays warm for a little while after it has dies. They say the brain keeps functioning for a bit as well. I think that we are approaching that point in the professional pilot career.

For too long, pilots have rested on their laurels, and expected the old viewpoints to persist; that is to say that they constantly bemoan the degradation of the pilot image, yet they do nothing to preserve it.

It's like watching a deposed King who cannot understand that he is no longer ruler over his nation. They are unable to comprehend their demise, because they assumed it could never happen. And, they always seem to think that they are morally entitled to great career success just because they are pilots.

Welcome to reality: You are worker like any other and you can be replaced. You are entitled to NOTHING. You must make yourself worthy of your pay or risk losing it.

If you want to win a battle, you must be willing to do what works. The failed strategy of pilots everywhere has been to force the issue through contracts.

CBA's alone are insufficient to prevent the destruction of the profession, which has been proven quite nicely, lately.


Why did the unions come to power in the first place? Abuse of the worker.

Think for a moment:

Supose that the companies that were part of the first union organization had very strategically met some, but not all of the union's demands. Suppose that every time the workers got riled up they let a little steam off by making some small improvement.

The first union organizations would have lacked much of the militant punch that they developed.

But instead, the companies thought that they were God, and that THEY would dictate the terms to the worker. In other words, their PRIDE got the best of them. "You'll work for us under our terms, or not at all!"

The workers found a way around company intransigence: The union.


Now, in may ways, the unions have become a model of that intransigence. Many pilots feel that they are automatically entitled to substantially larger shares of the company's profits every contract without any increase in productivity. In fact, with greater workrule restrictions, productivity goes down as pay goes up. It is unsustainable.

Greed is what killed the profession. That, and foolish ignorance and unwillingness to understand simple economics.

To those pilots who are willing to be reasonable, I sympathize with your current plight.

For the "full pay to the last day" types, who think that every contract should have a 20% increase, I take a certain grim satisfaction watching the career disintigrate.

Nothing people abhor more than watching illogic and ignorance get rewarded. And arrogance.

When you learn to use methods that ensure your success, you will succeed.

You all seem to think there is a way to jump into the water without getting wet. I'm here to tell you that is false.

 

[A Squared]

I'll have to do some research, but I can't recall a recent case where non-intoxicated, living pilots have been criminally prosecuted, post-accident.

Can anyone site a case off hand?

Off the top of my head, the twin otter pilot who killed a skydiver by buzzing him just a little too closely, and the captain of a Dash-8 (IIRC) involved in a fatal accident in New Zealand. Obviously, the latter bears little relevance, as it's not in the US, but as I recall, we wasn't doing anything extrordinarly reckelss, just lost SA and hit something. Also, they used CVR transcripts as part of hte prosecution.