Pilots detained in Brazil

[FN FAL]

Yep, that would sure fix the problem.

"Hey Joe, do you want to die in a fire in the next 5 minutes?"

"Sounds good....how would you like to spend the next 6 weeks in the hospital, be paralyzed for the rest of your life and have my death and those of every person in back weighing on your conscience until your dying day?"

"Sign me up! Set takeoff thrust........WAIT! Wait just a dang minute Joe!"

"What?"

"Some genius at FlightInfo.com clued me in that we might face criminal charges if we screw up! I can't have manslaughter charges filed against me - how would I ever defend myself while hooked up to a respirator?"

"You're right - I'd hate to have those charges hanging over my greiving wife and kids. Let's re-evaluate everything we've done up to this point."

Thank you random FlightInfo.com legal genius!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's all interesting and everything, but what prosecutor would prosecute a case on a person who's conviction would require the state to pay for medical bills and the inconvenience of having to use correctional assets to escort them to the hospital all the time?

None that I can think of.

Prosecutors want "winner" cases, that bring them "winner" convictions...they don't want to buy someone else's problems. Prosecutors have discretion and they use it on a case by case basis.

As far as the spirit behind your post, there is no exemption from criminal prosectution at the state level just because the crime occured with an aircraft.

Buzz someone's house and get caught, get nailed for "reckless endangerment".

Buzz somoene's house and crash, killing a passenger or a person on the ground, get nailed for "reckless homicide".

Buzz somone's house and then the engine quits because you "forgot" to fuel and someone dies, get nailed for "negligent homicide".

It's not random, its not rumor, it's the law. You just haven't heard much about it because most the time pilots die in the crash. Cite the "airplane" or "pilots" exemption from state law? You can't.

 

[pilot141]

Dude, you need to honor that factory recall notice.

You know, the one that replaces your faulty "humor" and "sarcasm" detector chips.

And I'm not going to get in a legal argument with you when every one of your examples uses the word "buzz".

 

[FN FAL]

And I'm not going to get in a legal argument with you when every one of your examples uses the word "buzz".

Ha, buzz? You got some catching up to do.

 

[handlesaregay]

You know I was reminded of this thread driving home tonight. There was a kid standing on the sidewalk under a streetlight after dark. I was driving by wondering what this kid was up to and as I glanced in my rearview mirror I saw another kid standing on the opposite side of the street completely in the shadows where I had just been. My heart skipped a beat because I was completely unaware of his presence until after I passed him because I was momentarily fixated on the other kid. If he would have been standing in front of my car I would have run right over him. Sure I could have said there were mitigating circumstances, poorly lit street, he was standing in the middle or the road, etc. But you could argue that I have the responsilbity to watch where I'm going at all times and if I hit something be it a kid, a dog, whatever.. it's my fault no matter what my "excuses" are. (Like taxiways under construction, poor runway markings, outdated charts, inattentive controller....)

Bad things happen. Charging people with involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide every time there's an accident where somebody is at "fault" is not going to prevent bad things from happening. If we re-establish debtors prisons for people who can't pay their bills will that make people more financially responsible? No! It just means more people will be in jail. And even if it did reduce the amount of deliquent bill payers, is that really the kind of country you want to live in?? Throwing people in jail for so called "crimes" is a Nazi-esque mentality that some people seem to have no problem whatsoever cozying up to.

 

[FN FAL]

You know I was reminded of this thread driving home tonight. There was a kid standing on the sidewalk under a streetlight after dark. I was driving by wondering what this kid was up to and as I glanced in my rearview mirror I saw another kid standing on the opposite side of the street completely in the shadows where I had just been...

check your state laws, pedestrians cannot dart out in front of traffic and expect to be exempt either:

<B>

346.24 Crossing at uncontrolled intersection or crosswalk.​

(1) </B>​

​

At an intersection or crosswalk where traffic is not
controlled by traffic control signals or by a traffic officer, the operator
of a vehicle shall yield the right−of−way to a pedestrian, or to
a person riding a bicycle or electric personal assistive mobility
device in a manner which is consistent with the safe use of the
crosswalk by pedestrians, who is crossing the highway within a
marked or unmarked crosswalk.
​

(2) ​

​

No pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal
assistive mobility device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield.
​

(3)​

​

​

Whenever any vehicle is stopped at an intersection or
crosswalk to permit a pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric
personal assistive mobility device to cross the roadway, the operator
of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake
and pass the stopped vehicle.​

History:​

​

​

1985 a. 69; 2001 a. 90.

The duties of drivers and pedestrians under ss. 346.23 and 346.24 are discussed and compared. Schoenauer v. Wendinger, 49 Wis. 2d 415, 182 N.W.2d 441 (1971).​

​

 

[pilot141]

Ha, buzz? You got some catching up to do.

While you're at the dealer, have that "logic" chip replaced as well. It seems to be malfunctioning. Also have them check out the "comprehension" chip.

handlesaregay never said anyone "darted out" in front of him. Your argument, while followed up by a cut-and-paste of some legalese, is as worthless as all of your others.

Your mom didn't pay for your DSL upgrade so you could post here - that was supposed to be for homework assignments!

 

[FN FAL]

handlesaregay never said anyone "darted out" in front of him. Your argument, while followed up by a cut-and-paste of some legalese, is as worthless as all of your others.

I'm sorry, he must have been looking for some boi's to have some fun with. I thought he was saying that he drove down the street and looked in his rearview mirror at some people he could have rolled up under his wheel wells by "accident" had they darted out in front of him.

 

[FN FAL]

Your mom didn't pay for your DSL upgrade so you could post here - that was supposed to be for homework assignments!

Ha, that's even funnier...I was digging Republic F-105 Thunderchiefs out of the Chesapeake Bay, long before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye. Nice try though.

 

[pilot141]

Wow. That's even sadder that I thought it could ever be.

I'd rather you be a pimply 15-year old, because if you actually had anything to do with the Thud many years ago then it means that you are spending your retirement days on a stupid FI.com messageboard.

I come here when I'm bored on trip. You apparently have nothing better to do in retirement......

If I retire and ever come on FI.com you ALL have permission to shoot me on sight. Have some mercy and point me toward the local whorehouse first, so I can at least have a good day but you still must END IT ALL.

 

[handlesaregay]

"darted", stood in the middle of the road, whatever. Whether or not there's a specific traffic code that might have gotten me off the hook is beside the point. Whatever the circumstances are the only thing that matters in my book is A) I didn't do it on purpose, B) I wasn't driving 80 mph through a residential area (gross negligence), and C) I wasn't impaired. However some people might feel that's not good enough, that any negligence is a crime. That's what we're debating here.

Edit: Before anyone gets confused here let me re-emphasize we are talking about a hypothetical situation, I did not actually run down anyone with my car.

 

[FN FAL]

"darted", stood in the middle of the road, whatever. Whether or not there's a specific traffic code that might have gotten me off the hook is beside the point... However some people might feel that's not good enough, that any negligence is a crime. That's what we're debating here.

What is so confusing? You said "darted, stood in the middle of the road, whatever." Those are not nebulous concepts that have vague meaning; darted and stood are two different acts. The difference, in this case, determines who could be found negligent.

If you un-intentionally run over a pedestrian who was lawfully using a crosswalk, because you were not paying attention, you're negligent.

If the pedestrian is jogging and darts out in front of you without leaving you time to stop, the jogger is negligent.

Besides, that's not traffic code I cited, that's Chapter 346 of the Wisconsin state statutes.

I don't have a problem with your confusion, it only means that when something like that does happen and a police man, who works solely in the interest of being your personal advocate against injustice, will take everything you say down on paper. If you say it wrong, there will be no correction later. Just babble to your advocate, the police man, and all will work out in good time.

My girlfriend rear-ended this other young woman, because my girlfriend was able to correctly articulate what happened, the driver of the rear-ended vehicle got a citation. That other driver was in the wrong.

That girl's mom was so mad that her daughter got a ticket for being rear-ended, that she came over to the house and was waving the ticket in the air, yelling and flailing arms...hahahahahaha. If she would have had balls, I would have kicked her in them.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff or being confused, but it does suck when you have to pay for it.

 

[FN FAL]

handlesaregay never said anyone "darted out" in front of him. Your argument, while followed up by a cut-and-paste of some legalese, is as worthless as all of your others.

That wasn't legalese, that was Chapter 346 of the Wisconsin State Statutes, otherwise known as "RULES OF THE ROAD". You might have those in your state and if you possess a driver's license, you might want to familiarize yourself with them. You'd be negligent if you didn't.

 

[Papps]

I kindof doubt that two pilots would knowingly be at a wrong altitude for the fun of it. Most of you are know-it-all av-dorks, and most likely still wet the bed bi-monthly

 

[AngelKing]

I kindof doubt that two pilots would knowingly be at a wrong altitude for the fun of it. Most of you are know-it-all av-dorks, and most likely still wet the bed bi-monthly

I quit wetting the bed a long time ago......so there.



AK

 

[FN FAL]

I kindof doubt that two pilots would knowingly be at a wrong altitude for the fun of it.

Are you saying they intended to hit that airliner?

That's a new one.

 

[handlesaregay]

What is so confusing? You said "darted, stood in the middle of the road, whatever." Those are not nebulous concepts that have vague meaning; darted and stood are two different acts. The difference, in this case, determines who could be found negligent.

If you un-intentionally run over a pedestrian who was lawfully using a crosswalk, because you were not paying attention, you're negligent.

If the pedestrian is jogging and darts out in front of you without leaving you time to stop, the jogger is negligent.

Besides, that's not traffic code I cited, that's Chapter 346 of the Wisconsin state statutes.

I don't have a problem with your confusion, it only means that when something like that does happen and a police man, who works solely in the interest of being your personal advocate against injustice, will take everything you say down on paper. If you say it wrong, there will be no correction later. Just babble to your advocate, the police man, and all will work out in good time.

My girlfriend rear-ended this other young woman, because my girlfriend was able to correctly articulate what happened, the driver of the rear-ended vehicle got a citation. That other driver was in the wrong.

That girl's mom was so mad that her daughter got a ticket for being rear-ended, that she came over to the house and was waving the ticket in the air, yelling and flailing arms...hahahahahaha. If she would have had balls, I would have kicked her in them.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff or being confused, but it does suck when you have to pay for it.

Okay smartass here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:

[I was driving by wondering what this kid was up to and as I glanced in my rearview mirror I saw another kid standing on the opposite side of the street completely in the shadows where I had just been. My heart skipped a beat because I was completely unaware of his presence until after I passed him because I was momentarily fixated on the other kid. If he would have been standing in front of my car I would have run right over him. Sure I could have said there were mitigating circumstances, poorly lit street, he was standing in the middle or the road, etc. But you could argue that I have the responsilbity to watch where I'm going at all times and if I hit something be it a kid, a dog, whatever.. it's my fault no matter what my "excuses" are. (Like taxiways under construction, poor runway markings, outdated charts, inattentive controller....)

Instead of addressing the actual point of my post you replied with an irrelvant cut and paste from the Wisconsin state statutes regarding pedestrians "darting" out in traffic. I tried to ignore it and get the discussion back on topic but you insist on hammering away at whatever point it is you're trying to make. So there is my original post, no where in it did I say anyone ran/darted/jumped in front of my car. Can we move on now? :uzi:

 

[FN FAL]

Okay smartass here is what I ACTUALLY WROTE:



Instead of addressing the actual point of my post you replied with an irrelvant cut and paste from the Wisconsin state statutes regarding pedestrians "darting" out in traffic. I tried to ignore it and get the discussion back on topic but you insist on hammering away at whatever point it is you're trying to make. So there is my original post, no where in it did I say anyone ran/darted/jumped in front of my car. Can we move on now? :uzi:

Why would you use a machine gun emoticon in your post, when you know for a fact that your reading comprehension and cognitive abilities prevent you from ever figuring out the rules and regulations of owning them?

For some reason you want to go on and on about, "accidents just happen".

That's not true...and I explained it to you several times.

I can summon purple dinosaurs and dancing teletubbies if that will help you out?

 

[handlesaregay]

Why would you use a machine gun emoticon in your post, when you know for a fact that your reading comprehension and cognitive abilities prevent you from ever figuring out the rules and regulations of owning them?

For some reason you want to go on and on about, "accidents just happen".

That's not true...and I explained it to you several times.

I can summon purple dinosaurs and dancing teletubbies if that will help you out?

What are you 5 years old? You sound like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. You misread my post as I very clearly pointed out and rather than simply acknowledging your error and moving on you want to keep clinging to your mistaken analysis like a dog with a bone. Do you want to attempt to explain to me again why the Wisconsin state statutes you posted regarding pedestrians suddenly darting out into traffic is relevant to my analogy of accidently running down a kid standing in the middle of the road? Can you answer this without the diversionary tactics and personal attacks? Or do you just want me to say:

"YES FN FAL. IN WISCONSIN IF A PEDESTRIAN DARTS IN FRONT OF YOUR CAR IT IS THEIR FAULT."

And so what if it is? You would have made an excellent point if I had actually said "a kid darted out in front of my car". Except I didn't say that. In your enthusiasm to tear apart my example you didn't read it very carefully. However at this point I'm not going to argue about it anymore. You seem more interested in being right all the time than participating in any kind of open exchange of ideas. Like political shouting matches on TV where at the end of the day everyone is still right where they started. This will more than likely be my last post on the subject.


Edit: Here is what you posted one last time for everyone's edification:


No pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric personal assistive mobility device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or ride into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is difficult for the operator of the vehicle to yield

I don't see where it says anything about "standing in the middle of the road" in that pargraph. But I guess my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours. ​

 

[FN FAL]

I don't see where it says anything about "standing in the middle of the road" in that pargraph. But I guess my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours.

Drive over someone standing in the middle of the road and you'll get all the education you'll ever want.

 

[GeneralAv]

FN FAL, what is your deal? You're like an insane vulture with an accident/crime fixation and lastworditis.

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL, what is your deal? You're like an insane vulture with an accident/crime fixation and lastworditis.

I'm insane because you guys don't know the definition of varying degrees of criminal negligence?

No, I'm insane to think that you guys would take a hint and realize that in the criminal justice system, there is no such thing as an accident.

Go ahead and do your best, I got lots of time and plenty of news stories to read...be one.

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL, what is your deal? You're like an insane vulture with an accident/crime fixation and lastworditis.

Here you go...talk to the train:

Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at

http://www.lacrossetribune.com





Man on train tracks killed while making obscene gesture at train
By The Associated Press

KENOSHA, Wis. — An 18-year-old man was struck and killed by a train as he reportedly stood on the tracks and made an obscene gesture at the train, the Kenosha Sheriff’s Department said Saturday.

Andrew J. Grosenick and Keith A. Lien, 18, both of Silver Lake, were using the tracks as a short cut home around 11:30 p.m. Friday, Lien told deputies.

Authorities say they believe both men were intoxicated at the time.

A train approached and both men got off the tracks, but Grosenick walked back onto the track, Lien told investigators.

The Wisconsin Central Railroad conductor told authorities he also saw Grosenick return to the track, raise his arm and “flip off” the train.

The train struck Grosenick, who was declared dead at the scene.

Lien was not injured but was taken to a hospital for what the sheriff’s department said was an “extreme state of intoxication.”

The accident remained under investigation.


All stories copyright 2000 - 2005 La Crosse Tribune and other attributed sources.

 

[pilot141]

What it comes down to is FN FAL being an internet a$$.

He came into the thread at post #39 on page three, and quickly derailed the thread into hair-splitting semantics. Add to that the fact that he must absolutely, positively have the last word and you have 4 pages of nonsense unrelated to the topic at hand.

USA Today ran a story today about the pilots in Brazil (remember them?) Seems they have a Brazilian lawyer working for them now. The article did quote someone as saying that the criminalization of accidents is an "alarming trend", citing the ATC guys in Switzerland in 2002 and a couple of others.

Anyone want to actually discuss what's going on with these guys and ignore the chaff?

 

[handlesaregay]

Anyone want to actually discuss what's going on with these guys and ignore the chaff?

You're right. I originally posted an article but I think I would rather get back on topic also.

 

[ackattacker]

USA Today ran a story today about the pilots in Brazil (remember them?) Seems they have a Brazilian lawyer working for them now. The article did quote someone as saying that the criminalization of accidents is an "alarming trend", citing the ATC guys in Switzerland in 2002 and a couple of others.

Anyone want to actually discuss what's going on with these guys and ignore the chaff?

I think this is the article you are talking about:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-aviation-debate_x.htm

Criminal investigations after an accident are part of "an increasing and alarming trend," said William Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, a safety group. "This tends to get in the way of the safety investigation, whose purpose is to find the causes and prevent future tragedies," Voss said.
"There is nothing like the threat of criminal charges to put a chill on an accident investigation," said Peter Goelz, former managing director of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

 

[pilot141]

Yep, that's the one.

Heck, the Air Force figured this out years ago. The Safety Investigation Board (SIB) has no punitive power and you must talk to them. The Accident Investigation Board (AIB) is separate, and does have punitive power. Before you talk to the AIB you lawyer up and shut your mouth, because they must do their own investigation.

If the guys in Brazil are facing a combined safety/criminal investigation how talkative will they be? Has Brazil ever heard of the ASRS program?

The essential question is: what is your goal? Is it to punish whoever you can or to prevent another accident? Those two goals do not always coincide.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Does anyone know the history and background of these 2 pilots? Are they ex-airline or strictly GA or Other (ok, military might count, but it can't be the only excuse [heh, heh])

 

[pilot141]

The FO is a furloughed AA guy with a lot of jet experience.

 

[handlesaregay]

"There is nothing like the threat of criminal charges to put a chill on an accident investigation," said Peter Goelz, former managing director of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

You can say that again. Every person from the pilots to the guy responsible for checking the runway for debris could face manslaughter charges if they link them to a crash. Can you imagine it? Some poor guy driving a truck who didn't see a hunk of metal on the runway could face 300+ counts of involuntary manslaughter. At least that seems to be the way some people want it. "Well maybe they'll be more careful..." right?

 

[pilot141]

Well if you actually let the criminal lagal system have a go at aviation then you will end up with nothing being an "accident".

And as I pointed out before (with an attempt at humor and sarcasm that went over ONE person's head), it won't change a damn thing as far as pilots/controllers go. There are ALWAYS lives on the line (most importantly my own!) - lining up criminal charges won't make anyone more "careful". It will just get the lawyers more money.