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

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
Avbug, I have always tried to post as if I was talking to the person face to face even if I didn't agree with them.

So do I. You don't get any different treatment than if were were having the same conversation face to face, except I'm possibly a little nicer, here.

Lets say, though, you are flying along VFR at 4500 feet, in class E airspace, enjoying the day, not talking to anyone when a jumper descends directly in front of you. There is nothing that you can do to avoid hitting him, and you do, killing him. You land ASAP and report what happened. Should you be prosecuted for that?

If you are fulfilling your duties as pilot in command, probably not. However, the specific circumstances of the situation should be examined. Just as an unintentional death on a motorway or any other place may still result in charges of negligence, manslaughter, and even homicide...the same may be applied equally to a similiar act in the air.

If upon investigation, for example, a discovery is made that the pilot has missed several radio calls during the course of the flight, a zelous prosecutor might make the case that the pilot was inattentive and therefore neglegent. Is he really negligent or inattentive? I certainly can't say; only one investigating the situation in real-time could make the call.

Conversely, if the skydiver strikes the airplane or it occurs the other way around and everybody is fulfilling their obligations and duties to see and avoid, talk, check NOTAMs, etc, then I imagine the only issues that might arise would be civil. Again, it's purely speculation as to what might occur...we can only address actual situations in this case to determine what course will be followed. In the case in question, apparently criminal charges are the order of the day.

If you're asking if I think a random accident constitutes a criminal act, no, of course I do not. However, a great many circumstances need to be considered. In this case, I think it's fairly easy to see the logic in at least considering charges against the individual in question, owing to the fact that he was not in the right place, doing the right thing, and the special consideration that the deceased was in the air because the pilot put him there.
 
atrdriver said:
Lets say, though, you are flying along VFR at 4500 feet, in class E airspace, enjoying the day, not talking to anyone when a jumper descends directly in front of you. There is nothing that you can do to avoid hitting him, and you do, killing him. You land ASAP and report what happened. Should you be prosecuted for that? If the jump zone wasn't NOTAM'd? You are not required to be talking to anyone, and seeing a jumper from a moving airplane isn't that easy a thing to do.

If you fly over an airport that is marked with the little parachuting device next to it on the sectional and you hit a skydiver and survive to land your plane, regardless of radio communication with the jump pilot or ATC, what do you think the jury is going to believe when they are prosecuting you?

If you are flying along and hit a skydiver and the jump was being performed without a notam being placed in the system, which probably means there was no radio communication made...what do you think the jury is going to believe when they are prosecuting the jump pilot?

When you plan a flight, you're supposed to draw a line on that chart and look at all the airspace and hazards to flight that will affect you. On an IFR flight plan, ATC will separate you from jump aircraft that are operating at a DZ or per a filed notam, the same will happen if you're getting vfr flight following. However, keep in mind that even IFR aircraft are not guaranteed separation from non participating aircraft in VMC conditions.

So if some drop zone is doing a bandit jump over some farmers ranch for a wedding and they didn't file a notam and don't call anybody on the radio, they be the negligent ones.

If you fly over an airport that has been a host for skydiving operations for 15 years and is plainly marked as such on a sectional and reduntantly so in the Airport Facility Directory...and you hit a skydiver, good luck. Unless you have a cvr, it's going to be real hard to prove who said what on the CTAF. And if you were not with center or approach or at least monitoring, you'll miss that tid bit of information.

Keep in mind, your transponder on and operating properly, means that most the time jump aircraft are advised of your position. Most of the time. Also keep in mind, just because ATC tells us that your location is 4 miles south of the airport northbound, that we will be able to find you in the big sky.

I think you had the right idea when you asked the question...What will get me in trouble with the criminal justice system, if there's an accident or an incident?

Follow the intent of the AIM, adhere strictly to the FARS, abide by your POH, know where you are going and what you're flying over or through, use good operating procedures, follow your renter's agreement or your flying club by-laws and don't do anything that would make a reasonable and prudent person say WTF?
 
Last edited:
Avbug, you have the mentality of a two year old. You speak as if you have so much knowledge but your words come out as if your in kindergarden. You obviously didn't understand the meaning of my post. I did not have the full story on what happened in Deland. But I also disagree with what you said. First of all to me it is pointless to have a FAR that covers careless flying AND a state statue that does the same. IMHO that is overprosecution. And your analogy to Nascar is so stupid. Again, read my post. Putting a gun to a drivers head had nothing to do with what I said. Sure if the pilot at Deland was doing something stupid like that I agree he should be charged. And yes you do put your life at risk by jumping out of an airplane DUH! Same as base jumping, ice climbing, etc. Playing golf is not ask risky wouldn't you agree?? If you follow news outside of your little world you would know about the Falcon in Greece a few years ago that had an upset in flight and some pax died, some VIP pax and the pilots were charged, or like the JAL MD-11 Captain who had a a/p problem and a F/A died and he was charged. I can see the same thing happening here in the states and that was my point!
 
Metro752 said:
Charging this guy with manslaughter is so stupid.
I don't think I was advocating that that's what should be done. Scroll back and read the piece I posted on "overcriminalizaiton".

In the case of the jump pilot who collided with the jumper, charging him criminally with state charges IS redundant.

One...the FAA probably will revoke, suspend or at least put a nasty-gram in the pilots record. A career stunting punitive judgement for sure.

Two...the widow or the estate will sue for wrongful death, dohhh! The widow or the estate will be made whole by a judgement in court. What else do you need? This will be the ass burner!

Three...was there a rip in the fabric of society when the jump pilot collided with the jumper? Hmmmm, that's the 56,000 dollar question. Because that's the reason the state legislation passed the law...they feel that the moral fabric of society has been damaged and it must be repaired by processing this case through the criminal justice system. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
As a fellow skydiver and as a fellow part time jump pilot I have to say this. And if someone said it already sorry, don't have time to read the entire thread. What the F...... was that pilot doing over over the landing area and or dropzone and at the same altitude as his jumpers. When I dumped a load, i would break away from the dropzone and wouldn't begin my descent for at least 5 seconds. AT jumpers pull altitude I made sure I was at least a half mile away from them while under canopy because there is no reason whatso ever to be near them. Now its fun to beat jumpers down and it isn't even that hard to do but what happend here didn't need to happen. Ive seen a video of my friend jump out of the porter and 10 seconds after the jump the porter goes right below them and comes withing 100 feet of them. That is carless and reckless in my opinion.
 
I agree, Lrjtcptn. Airspeed apparently didn't read the part where I noted I was at DeLand, on a skydive, on the birthday of the DZO, on his birthday end of the day load, when the jump airplane did a low pass directly beneath me as I was landing my parachute canopy, at that drop zone, in the same place that Wing was killed. I thought it was a stupid thing to do then, I think it was a stupid thing now. I had some very sober thoughts of kicking the pilots butt.

Having hit and killed someone, the pilot deserves more than a butt kicking. Much more.

Administrative penalties do not equal careless and reckless operation that leads to a death. Certainly the FAA will have their pound of flesh, and certainly certificate suspension or revocation is in order. I can't imagine anything less than certificate revocation, but it's not my call. It's also very much dependent upon the pilots attitude and the results of whatever investigative work takes place. That much is obvious.

However, the FAA does not speak for any other branch of the government. The FAA is not pursuing criminal charges, in this case. The FAA is acting within the agencies discretion to act administratively. Other charges are being brought for other laws violated by an entirely different legal system.

Fn fal thinks it's okay that the pilot receives civil penalties in a law suit with the estate of the dead jumper, and it's okay that the FAA acts...but not okay if criminal law has effect. I don't understand that mentality...three different, separate, areas of law, each with their own effect. Yet a pilot who violates law and results in the death of another person through an intentional reckless act of neglect, should go scott free under the criminal justice system. How utterly ridiculous.

Perhaps if I shoot into a crowded schoolyard from an airplane, I'm doing the right thing, because my wheels aren't touching the ground. In that case, the FAA should go after me for 91.13, careless and reckless operation, posing a hazard to persons or property on the surface...after all, I wasn't paying as much attention to flying the airplane as I should. And the families of the deceased children should sue me for all I'm worth...that's okay. It's their right. But the people, who have criminal laws regarding homicide and manslaughter, have no redress, because after all, the air is the FAA's jurisdiction, and there is no "FAR" regarding murdering people with an airplane...in no wise should I ever be prosecuted criminally, right?

Now airspeed thinks jumpes are risking their lives...we all stand a high probability of dying when we go out the door on a skydive. The statistics say he's not telling the truth, but what do statistics know? What do experienced jumpes know? What on earth has that to do with a jumper who is killed by a reckless pilot who is operating unsafely? Never the less, let's go with it. Jumpers are going to die anyway, so it's okay to kill them by hitting them with airplanes. That's Airspeed's premise, so we'll just fiat that in...for airspeed who likes to talk in childish terms such as "doh" we'll note that fiat means we just accept his premise.

So here we are, accepting the fact that skydivers know they'll likely die when they jump, and accepting the fact that skydivers will probably die when we jump. This being the case, then nobody should have any problem with shooting them in freefall. No problem. Perhaps poisoning the sandwiches at the local Drop Zone cafe. Swapping parachutes for laundry. After all, it's free entertainment. Those jumpers are engaging in an activity that will probably kill them...why not help them along. We're not hurting anything? So they get killed...it's not like they were doing something SAFE after all, is it? Kill them all, let whatever god they believe in, choose among them. Right, airspeed?

It's okay. It's okay for us to shoot them, poison them, sabotage a jump (right?)...danger is danger, and what could possibly be more dangerous than jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, right? Except. No. We can't go there. It wouldn't be right. Except....no, we've established that it's perfectly okay to kill skydivers. Except, well, except possibly hitting them with an airplane in freefall or under canopy. There, we said it. We addressed reality again. Hitting the skydiver while he prepares to land the airplane, under a good, functioning, proven, professionally designed and built, TSO'd (by the FAA, incidentally) ram air parachute canopy. Hmmm.

Skydiving is dangerous? No, not really. Unprotected sex, now that's dangerous. Mexican bullfighting, that's dangerous (not the pansy spanish kind). Taunting your mother in law. That's dangerous. Parking at the local walmart after sunset. That's dangerous. Driving to work on any given day. That's dangerous. Eating uncooked sea food. That's dangerous. But skydiving? Using one's body as a flying surface against adequate relative wind, while monitoring one or two calibrated altimeters, backed up by a computerized altitude monitoring device that will mechanically and explosively deploy a second, emergency, certificated, recently inspected and professionally packed reserve parachute (cypress), to descend to a preselected altitude which is announed by an electronic monitor alarm behind one ear, where one deploys a scientifically designed and very tested and very proven parachute assembly, and then flies and descends under a large airfoil to a touchdown that's often light as a feather, softer than any airplane lands....that's dangerous? How about let's hear from a real skydiver...one of many of us here who do have a leg to stand on...who can answer from experience? It's not dangerous.

Even if skydiving were dangerous, does that in any way, shape or form justify homicide of any kind? If it does, then logic must prevail. Logic dictates that if it's okay to kill a skydiver because he engages in a dangerous act, then it's okay to kill others who engage in dangerous acts. Four boxers have died in the ring in Las Vegas this year. That's dangerous. It's probably perfectly acceptable to swing from the ceiling on a long rope and strike one in the head with one's feet...it's fun, it's wholesome, and the boxer is probably going to get killed anyway. Just like the skydiver. Or that pesky NASCAR driver. Hard to argue that their life isn't dangerous. If it's not the inevitable spin-outs and crashes that happen at every race, they risk beign mobbed to death by fans. Why not just ram into one, push him into the wall, kill the driver? He knew it was a dangerous thing when he entered the track...he took the risk knowingly. Killing him is okay, therefore. Best of all, NASCAR has rules abut that. The driver that does the killing will get a sanction. After suffering a setback like that, the driver that does the killing does NOT deserve to be prosecuted criminally, right? After all, NASCAR had their pound of flesh.

With logic like this, next time the chicken coop burns down, we'll dehorn all the cows. It makes as much sense.
 
Avbug, you are preaching to the choir. Once it became known to those who didn't know what the jump pilot did, noone has a problem with the law going after him.

Now you can go huff and puff and take your mini-novels to your next victims in another thread.

AK
 
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.
 
airspeed said:
Avbug, you have the mentality of a two year old. You speak as if you have so much knowledge but your words come out as if your in kindergarden. You obviously didn't understand the meaning of my post. I did not have the full story on what happened in Deland. But I also disagree with what you said. First of all to me it is pointless to have a FAR that covers careless flying AND a state statue that does the same. IMHO that is overprosecution. And your analogy to Nascar is so stupid. Again, read my post. Putting a gun to a drivers head had nothing to do with what I said. Sure if the pilot at Deland was doing something stupid like that I agree he should be charged. And yes you do put your life at risk by jumping out of an airplane DUH! Same as base jumping, ice climbing, etc. Playing golf is not ask risky wouldn't you agree?? If you follow news outside of your little world you would know about the Falcon in Greece a few years ago that had an upset in flight and some pax died, some VIP pax and the pilots were charged, or like the JAL MD-11 Captain who had a a/p problem and a F/A died and he was charged. I can see the same thing happening here in the states and that was my point!

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:
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.
 
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?
 
I am responding to current posts on the subject. Swass posted a comment to which I responded. But seeing as you responded too...

Avbug, did you read this post where he said he didn't have the full story and he agrees the pilot should be charged?

Yes, I read that part, but also read his assertion that:

First of all to me it is pointless to have a FAR that covers careless flying AND a state statue that does the same.

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.
 
When I have time I will splain it you. You are spinning stats with nothing to back them up, nor are you citing any sources. PM me if you would like to get into insurance theory, actuarial or otherwise. You think you know alot about airplanes, step on in....
 
Here's one mower...

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/l...5298106.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

No bail for pilot

By Keach Hagey
Staff Writer

October 7, 2005

WHITE PLAINS -- A Westchester County judge denied bail yesterday to the Bethel man charged in Connecticut and New York with stealing a plane and flying it while drunk, sending him back to the jail he has occupied since June.

Philippe Patricio, 21, pleaded not guilty in July to felony charges of possession of stolen property and reckless endangerment and misdemeanor charges of unauthorized use of a vehicle, flying while intoxicated and resisting arrest.

Although no bond has been set in New York, he faces $1 million bond in Connecticut.

Westchester County Court Judge Barbara Zambelli said she based her decision on fears that New York might lose jurisdiction over the case if Patricio posted bail.

Because she is not the judge assigned to the case, she deferred a final decision on bail to Westchester County Court Judge Rory Bellantoni, who will return from vacation to hear the request again on Wednesday.

A warrant for Patricio's arrest from the Danbury Police Department awaits him at the door of the Westchester County Jail in Valhalla, N.Y., where he has been incarcerated since June 22, the day he allegedly landed a stolen Cessna on the darkened runway of Westchester County Airport.

Patricio's lawyer, Edwin Camacho, of Danbury, had planned to request a bond of $1 to make his point that his client should not be held without bail, but did not get a chance to discuss dollar amounts. He is hoping to make that request before Bellantoni next week.

Camacho has been trying to negotiate with prosecutors from both states to create a single set of charges that would end the interstate tug of war.

"We are talking about one event that began in one state and ended in the other," he said.

The incident has drawn national attention because it revealed the ease with which someone could break into an airport and steal a plane after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist hijackings.

In response to an outpouring of concern, Gov. M. Jodi Rell appointed a panel over the summer to examine airport security throughout the state. The panel concluded last month that the current voluntary airport security measures were sufficient.

Camacho has repeatedly charged that post-9/11 "hysteria" has affected the way his client has been treated by the courts in both states.

Because Patricio has been incarcerated since the incident, he has not been able to be questioned by Danbury Police Department investigators, according to Camacho and Danbury police spokesmen.

Based mostly on the testimony of his two passengers, the Danbury police concluded in July that Patricio and the teens scaled an 8-foot fence topped with barbed wire to access the approximately $50,000 Cessna, the police spokesman said.

As his time in jail creeps into its fourth month, Camacho said Patricio was holding up, but his family was getting concerned about the amount of time he has spent locked up with other people awaiting trial, many of whom Camacho called "hardened criminals."

A native of Brazil, Patricio came to the United States as a middle school student and most recently worked as a mechanic. His father, Ideraldo Patricio, watched yesterday as his son was led into the courtroom in the same pressed white shirt and dress slacks he has worn to previous court appearances, answering the judge with a polite but firm, "Yes I do, Your Honor. Good morning," when she asked if he spoke English.

Although his client now understands the 9/11 implications of the incident, Camacho said, "He is still somewhat awed by the court's view of the case."

If convicted, Patricio could be sentenced to up to seven years in state prison, according to Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office.
 
Nervermind


http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=3559dc64-8fb4-44d8-a123-4ea297d4f160&


on error resume next flash2Installed = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.2"))) flash3Installed = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.3"))) flash4Installed = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.4"))) flash5Installed = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.5"))) flash6Installed = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.6"))) if(nNoFlash) { showTableBasedFlashAd("329.gif"); } else { showFlashAd("329.swf"); } Aero-News Clarification: Deland Pilot Not Charged In Skydiver's Death

Sat, 08 Oct '05
Police Recommend Manslaughter Count Be Filed

Aero-News erroneously reported this week that the pilot of a DeHavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter (file photo of type, below) has been charged with manslaughter in the death of a skydiver who had just jumped from his plane over Deland, FL. Instead, Deland Police recommended to the Florida State Attorney's Office that charges be filed, but the State Attorney's Office has yet to act on that recommendation.
Our sources erroneously reported the charges had been filed on October 5th. Police won't release the evidence they say implicates William Buchmann, a pilot for Skydive Deland, is somehow responsible for the death of 55-year old Albert "Gus" Wing III.
Buchmann was reportedly diving back toward the airport after releasing his jumpers when his left wing severed both of Wing's legs at the knees. Wing survived the jump, but died a short time later.
"For him [Buchmann] to be charged with manslaughter, the police department is going to have to show he was negligent in some fashion in the way he was flying the airplane," Cmdr. Randel Henderson, DeLand police spokesman told the Orlando Sentinel. "We have to show that the degree of fault is such that the culpable negligence has been met.... That's going to be the catch phrase."
The announcement that police were seeking charges came as a surprise to many in the Florida skydiving community. It also surprised Wing's mother, who spoke with a Sentinel reporter by phone from her home in Virginia.
"No, no, there was no intent to do harm to Gus at all," said Gladys Wing. "They were good friends."
"I don't think you could find anyone of any means in sky diving who would call this anything other than a tragic accident," said Richard Schachner, the southeast regional director of the USPA. "I don't feel a charge like that is really warranted."
The NTSB said its investigation wouldn't be complete for at least "a couple of months." The FAA said Buchmann's flying record over four decades was "unblemished."
FMI: www.ntsb.gov

 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom