AngelKing
Previous Aviation V.J.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Posts
- 350
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Questions affecting all of us
- Thread starter airspeed
- Start date
- Watchers 9
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
pilot91101
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2005
- Posts
- 15
No, AK, that's not the case. Several posters here firmly believe that the pilot should not be prosecuted, that it's "too much." After all, the FAA has had their shot at him, and that should be enough...so they say.
The original poster seems especially incensed at this miscarriage of justice, that a pilot should be charged with anything for just doing his job.
The original poster seems to believe that the skydiver had it coming.
The original poster seems to believe that the skydiver accepted this outcome when he elected to jump and the act therefore was not criminal, but a natural outcome of making a skydive.
Choir? If that's the case, it's a lousy sounding one.
The original poster seems especially incensed at this miscarriage of justice, that a pilot should be charged with anything for just doing his job.
The original poster seems to believe that the skydiver had it coming.
The original poster seems to believe that the skydiver accepted this outcome when he elected to jump and the act therefore was not criminal, but a natural outcome of making a skydive.
Choir? If that's the case, it's a lousy sounding one.
AngelKing
Previous Aviation V.J.
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Posts
- 350
airspeed said:
Avbug, did you read this post where he said he didn't have the full story and he agrees the pilot should be charged?
Now you can withdraw and plan your next assault.
And, I think 99% of people asked would say that skydiving is dangerous. Doesn't mean you deserve to die.
AK
Last edited:
Swass
So long, America.....
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 2,015
There's something to this skydiving danger thing. Take any Life Insurance application and it asks if you are involved in or plan on doing any skydiving or other "hazardous" activities. If you check yes they will want all sorts of other info. The actuaries seem to think it is more dangerous, thus, they charge more premium for it. They might not be as intelligent as you though, as you say stats don't lie. Whatever.
Avbug, you are doing exactly what you get pissed at others for. Just re-read post #40, yeah that's it, the really long one.
Avbug, you are doing exactly what you get pissed at others for. Just re-read post #40, yeah that's it, the really long one.
Insurance agents and companies are in the business of making money and addressing risk. Not the risk in the air, not the risk under canopy but financial risk. Statistically, you're much more likely to be in a car accident than in a parachute accident, even if you're a regular, busy skydiver. You're more likely to die of many causes, than a parachute accident, even for active skydivers who have thousands of jumps.
Insurance companies seek ways to raise premiums, period. Have they paid out on many skydiving deaths? NO. In fact, seldom does insurance pay following a jump death, as it's usually always an exclusion. No, the reason that skydiving is taken into account is that the insurance company uses it as a marker; it's evidence of a dangerous attitude, of a proclivity toward dangerous acts. Even if you've made one tandem jump and have never jumped again, or intend to...you're a skydiver, and you have shown a proclivity toward dangerous behavior.
Is this logical? No. Is it correct? No. Does it have a legitimate psychological basis? No. But it sounds good on paper, and it's a good way to raise rates. Insurance companies are about making money and finding excuses, often very flimsy ones, to avoid paying out...hardly the authority on statistical risk. Putting things in their own terms, using whatever excuse may be had, is in their best interest, and therefore nullifies such as authoritative or unbiased.
Regardless of what insurance companies charge, do you thus submit that because a skydiver might merit a higher insurance premium, killing the skydiver is a legitimate act which should not be punished under criminal law?
Weather skydiving is dangerous or not isn't relevant to the issue of weather killing a jumper with an airplane is a wrongful act. If the pilot is acting recklessly, flying where he should not, at altitude she should not, when warnings are published, the pilot is trained in the activities involved, and the regulations clearly preclude his being there, if a death results from those careless actions, should the pilot not be held accountable?
Insurance companies seek ways to raise premiums, period. Have they paid out on many skydiving deaths? NO. In fact, seldom does insurance pay following a jump death, as it's usually always an exclusion. No, the reason that skydiving is taken into account is that the insurance company uses it as a marker; it's evidence of a dangerous attitude, of a proclivity toward dangerous acts. Even if you've made one tandem jump and have never jumped again, or intend to...you're a skydiver, and you have shown a proclivity toward dangerous behavior.
Is this logical? No. Is it correct? No. Does it have a legitimate psychological basis? No. But it sounds good on paper, and it's a good way to raise rates. Insurance companies are about making money and finding excuses, often very flimsy ones, to avoid paying out...hardly the authority on statistical risk. Putting things in their own terms, using whatever excuse may be had, is in their best interest, and therefore nullifies such as authoritative or unbiased.
Regardless of what insurance companies charge, do you thus submit that because a skydiver might merit a higher insurance premium, killing the skydiver is a legitimate act which should not be punished under criminal law?
Weather skydiving is dangerous or not isn't relevant to the issue of weather killing a jumper with an airplane is a wrongful act. If the pilot is acting recklessly, flying where he should not, at altitude she should not, when warnings are published, the pilot is trained in the activities involved, and the regulations clearly preclude his being there, if a death results from those careless actions, should the pilot not be held accountable?
I am responding to current posts on the subject. Swass posted a comment to which I responded. But seeing as you responded too...
Yes, I read that part, but also read his assertion that:
This indicates a failure to comprehend the difference between legal systems and jurisdictions. The topic of the thread is the criminal prosecution of pilots. Should a pilot suffer criminal penalties or prosecution following an event in the air? Airspeed cites two examples involving crew or passenger injuries while in flight. In each case, he cites criminal prosecution of the pilot.
I flew for a company that employed a pilot who had formerly worked for an airline. He had been discharged, as I later learned, for injuring a flight attendant by doing unwise things with the airplane on a no-pax ferry flight. The company discharged him and kept the issue quiet, rather than address the bad publicity such a stunt might bring. He continued flying, everybody is happy. Except the flight attendant.
Setting aside her own personal legal interventions, consider what might have happened had she been killed. One might say that it was turbulence over which the captain had no control, or one might say he was horsing around and killed someone. One might say that a pilot who elects to fly into a thunderstorm and thus injures passengers has failed his duty and is thus liable for prosecution. Not merely certificate action, but criminal neglegence.
The idea that merely because the FAA takes administrative action against a pilot, that the pilot should not be subject to criminal law is ridiculous. The notion that the victim was somehow involved in a risky behavior (skydiving, walking about the airplane without a seatbelt, pick your poison), and should therefore accept some of the blame or somehow absolve the pilot of criminal liability, is likewise ridiculous.
This goes beyond the issue of a skydiver at DeLand. Airspeed increased the scope at the outset, and has expanded it since. This applies to the greater issue of PIC liability and duty. That it's not limited to FAA administrative action is nothing new. Nor should it come as a surprise, nor should the pilot community see this as a new threat. It's not a threat, it's not new, and it's always been the case. Moreover, a pilot who violates a criminal law, or is culpable in the death or injury of another, can, will, and should be required at the hand of the law to take the appropriate responsibility and accept the consequences.
As it's often said, if you can't afford the time, don't do the crime.
Yes, I read that part, but also read his assertion that:
This indicates a failure to comprehend the difference between legal systems and jurisdictions. The topic of the thread is the criminal prosecution of pilots. Should a pilot suffer criminal penalties or prosecution following an event in the air? Airspeed cites two examples involving crew or passenger injuries while in flight. In each case, he cites criminal prosecution of the pilot.
I flew for a company that employed a pilot who had formerly worked for an airline. He had been discharged, as I later learned, for injuring a flight attendant by doing unwise things with the airplane on a no-pax ferry flight. The company discharged him and kept the issue quiet, rather than address the bad publicity such a stunt might bring. He continued flying, everybody is happy. Except the flight attendant.
Setting aside her own personal legal interventions, consider what might have happened had she been killed. One might say that it was turbulence over which the captain had no control, or one might say he was horsing around and killed someone. One might say that a pilot who elects to fly into a thunderstorm and thus injures passengers has failed his duty and is thus liable for prosecution. Not merely certificate action, but criminal neglegence.
The idea that merely because the FAA takes administrative action against a pilot, that the pilot should not be subject to criminal law is ridiculous. The notion that the victim was somehow involved in a risky behavior (skydiving, walking about the airplane without a seatbelt, pick your poison), and should therefore accept some of the blame or somehow absolve the pilot of criminal liability, is likewise ridiculous.
This goes beyond the issue of a skydiver at DeLand. Airspeed increased the scope at the outset, and has expanded it since. This applies to the greater issue of PIC liability and duty. That it's not limited to FAA administrative action is nothing new. Nor should it come as a surprise, nor should the pilot community see this as a new threat. It's not a threat, it's not new, and it's always been the case. Moreover, a pilot who violates a criminal law, or is culpable in the death or injury of another, can, will, and should be required at the hand of the law to take the appropriate responsibility and accept the consequences.
As it's often said, if you can't afford the time, don't do the crime.
Swass
So long, America.....
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 2,015
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
