Questions affecting all of us

[AngelKing]

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

 

[pilot91101]

Don't f*uck up and kill anybody and you will be OK.

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[AngelKing]

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

 

[Swass]

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]

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?

 

[AngelKing]

Avbug, jeez, it has already been posted over and over the guy should be prosecuted! Are you bored today or something?

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[Swass]

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....

 

[AngelKing]

oooohhhhhhh nnnnoooooo...nnnnoooo....nnnnoooo. say you didn't just do that. say it is all a bad dream

 

[FN FAL]

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.

 

[erj-145mech]

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