All Military A/c Techies Read This.

[spike7451]

Found this on 'The Goat',quite worrying.

http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=24143

I had an e-mail from the ALAE the other day about the criminalisation of aircraft accidents.

Click on the link HERE and it will take you to the ALAE news page. Click on the link there and it will direct you to a PDF letter from a well known aviation solicitor.

Basically, there is an increase in criminilisation of people involved in the chain that leads to aircraft accidents an crashes.

With the advent of Mil part 145 on the doorstep, the letter is very relevant to all aircraft techies in the military.

It's something for all the low pay band AMMs in particular to think about.

[sooty]

A very interesting post. Having been someone who got put upon after refusing to sign for stuff I hadn't done (biroscopes and the like) I personally do not have a problem with this. Having said that I would like to know just how far up the chain something would go given the correct circumstances.

[John B (Sc)]

I couldn't the relevant solicitor's letter to open. Since I don't like or trust lawyers anyway as a general rule, especially ones who give unsolictited opinions, maybe my computer has read my mind !

This in any event nothing new. If you are viewed in law as a 'man of substance' (or person in these PC times), then your signature has legal weight. You can be taken to task if what you havwe signed for is not correct. All chartered engineers are aware of that. I believe all licenced aircraft mantainers would also be viewed in the same way. It IS a very responsible job.

I entirely agrree with sooty, you should always refuse to sign for what you haven't done or directly witnessd. Once when pushed, I asked the person involved to give me a signed note to the effect that he required my compliance and signature. That stopped it fast. Guess why.

What is more of a worry, IMO, is the recent Italian court decision to jail two pilots who ditched an aircraft after a double engine failure, caused by a technical problem. It was argued they could possibly have glided the aircraft to a succesful onshore landing. That seems to me to second guess the pilots, from the comfort and safety of a courtroom. That is unreasonable. The pilots made what they felt was the best judgment at the time with the information they were faced with.

A very dangerous precedent. Now lawyers feel they may question our judgement, not just our truthfulness and accuracy. But then, when a coroner (!) can make statements about the airworthiness from design stage of a successful aircraft and not be shouted down, what idiocy will lawyers not indulge in ?

[TonyT]

I couldn't the relevant solicitor's letter to open. Since I don't like or trust lawyers anyway as a general rule, especially ones who give unsolictited opinions, maybe my computer has read my mind !

This in any event nothing new. If you are viewed in law as a 'man of substance' (or person in these PC times), then your signature has legal weight. You can be taken to task if what you havwe signed for is not correct. All chartered engineers are aware of that. I believe all licenced aircraft mantainers would also be viewed in the same way. It IS a very responsible job.

I entirely agrree with sooty, you should always refuse to sign for what you haven't done or directly witnessd. Once when pushed, I asked the person involved to give me a signed note to the effect that he required my compliance and signature. That stopped it fast. Guess why.

What is more of a worry, IMO, is the recent Italian court decision to jail two pilots who ditched an aircraft after a double engine failure, caused by a technical problem. It was argued they could possibly have glided the aircraft to a succesful onshore landing. That seems to me to second guess the pilots, from the comfort and safety of a courtroom. That is unreasonable. The pilots made what they felt was the best judgment at the time with the information they were faced with.

A very dangerous precedent. Now lawyers feel they may question our judgement, not just our truthfulness and accuracy. But then, when a coroner (!) can make statements about the airworthiness from design stage of a successful aircraft and not be shouted down, what idiocy will lawyers not indulge in ?

As a certifying Licenced Engineer it has always been that way for us, the CAA at the time instead of carrying out an inspection of the Aircraft on a (C of A) Certificate of Airworthiness Renewal as they used to put that emphasise on myself as a Nominated Engineer, Basically they were sh*t scared of getting sued so passed the buck, I recommended the Issue without the CAA probably ever seeing the Aircraft for 10 years or so, similarly under EASA I now as a C Certifying Engineer issue the ARC that validates the none expiring CofA and as such the buck has always stopped here, along with the Accountable Manager. The problem you have is EASA tried to fix a system that wasn't broken by throwing paperwork and legislation at it, all it has resulted in is a less safe world Aviation wise and one where rules are no longer clear cut and the paperwork has got out of control. you would not believe the paperwork involved in an inspection.

A recent case where an Engineer was interviewed the interviewer brought in with him one of those Police profiler type people that work out when people are lying etc when giving evidence, all that has done is to make people less willing to cooperate, accidents do happen, it is never ever a perfect world and those that believe it is are lying to themselves... we all learn from them and benefit from it, by making you the criminal and facing a sentence etc means you lose the respect of those concerned, the free movement of information that could save lives dries up, who is going to say I messed up, this is what I did, if you are faced with imprisonment.......... no one is, as with the pilots, it is often a split decision, take the ditching in the Hudson, if say 50 died he would possibly have been prosecuted......

Edited April 6, 2009 by TonyT

[Danny]

Timely reminder about how important signatures are on paperwork/computers.

I saw an program on tv about an American airline crash that was caused by a fairy removing a gas generator from another a/c and didn't store them properly because he didn't have the correct blanking caps. A stacker boxed up the generators and labelled them incorrectly, which is how they got loaded onto the a/c that crashed, and he was sent to prison because his name was on the paperwork - even though the failing was with the supply chain I can understand the argument that the avionics guy had failed in his job by signing for fitting blanking caps when he hadn't but that was one line of a procedure whereas once the generators were removed then the job on the a/c could be signed off. I suspect that to say that the generators were only partially removed when 'all' they needed were blanking caps, and nothing else that would hamper the a/c task, wouldn't exactly gain much favour with the tradesman's supervisors?

Always comes to mind whenever I think about what I'm actually signing for

I'm also one of the many (I suspect) who've been made to sign for work I've had nothing to do with and I'm often on the other side of the coin of having to get jobs done unsupervised and then finding someone to oversign me. It's nice to know when you've earnt a lot of trust from people willing to oversign you but there are times when I'd rather have had someone watching over what I'm doing

Danny

[Rob M.]

What is more of a worry, IMO, is the recent Italian court decision to jail two pilots who ditched an aircraft after a double engine failure, caused by a technical problem. It was argued they could possibly have glided the aircraft to a succesful onshore landing. That seems to me to second guess the pilots, from the comfort and safety of a courtroom. That is unreasonable. The pilots made what they felt was the best judgment at the time with the information they were faced with.

I think in that case, the Captain was actually jailed because he spent several minutes praying out loud, rather than going through the Emergency Drills! Pending an appeal a number of others including maintainers are also facing jail terms for this one as they fitted an incorrect fuel gauge, the consequence of which resulted in the aircraft being insufficiently fuelled to complete the flight.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7962082.stm

All I can add is to reiterate - if you didn't do it (or can't remember doing it) don't sign for it!

Even if you saw somebody else 'appear to do it' just ask yourself - was it done in accordance with the pubs, right parts, right consumables, right tooling - set correctly etc?

Safety is no accident!

Rob M.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Rob M.

[Mattie Bee]

What is more of a worry, IMO, is the recent Italian court decision to jail two pilots who ditched an aircraft after a double engine failure, caused by a technical problem. It was argued they could possibly have glided the aircraft to a successful onshore landing. That seems to me to second guess the pilots, from the comfort and safety of a courtroom. That is unreasonable. The pilots made what they felt was the best judgment at the time with the information they were faced with.

I have read in to this one and In my opinion the court is correct.

The Aircraft was a ATR 42 and on the previous flight the same pilot snagged the Fuel Level Indicator.

A replacement was fitted but was the wrong type, that of a ATR 72, which is a larger aircraft so gave a 1800Kgs over reading.

No fuel was placed in to the aircraft over night and the Pilot noted in the morning that he had an increased fuel load but left without the refueling chit or confirming the situation after the dispatcher said he would look for it and give it to him when he gets back. My understanding is he must have that chit before he leaves, no matter what the dispatcher says.

Also when he had the double engine failure after numerous failed engine starts he did not feather the props which if he had would of enabled the aircraft to glide past the airport he was attempting to divert to.

But back on to the original Topic.

This isn't really a new thing. We all have a duty to the aircraft and its crew, and I certainly can say I have never signed for some thing I have not done, if I have been asked to do so I basically start the job again. I cannot vouch for everyone but I am certain what I do. It may annoy the supervisors but rather that then have the aircraft go down and your stood there in front of the board of inquiry with your name on the job that brought it down and your saying I never did the task I just signed for it. Aircraft paper work is not just a bunch of signatures that need to be done to get the aircraft airborne. They are legally binding documents, and its not worth the risk.

[Mattie Bee]

It's nice to know when you've earnt a lot of trust from people willing to oversign you but there are times when I'd rather have had someone watching over what I'm doing

You have to remember that your supervisors have more that one person to supervise and cannot be there all the time so in that case do what I do> Drag them over when you get to a critical point in the task. Its never inconvenient, not when safety is the primary concern. Even if the aircrew are wanting to go an hour ago, we can say no.

Example for me being a valve change;

The supervisor doesn't really need to see you take it out. I get them over before I start the fitment, happy that the area and ducts are clear then fit the seals and claps whilst their there, There also a second pair of hands, When the clamps are on they can go off supervise someone else and leave you to tighten the thing up and connect it electrically then when your finished they come back check torque settings and orientation. Then on to the Ground run. After which it gets locked up bay checked and done

I'm sure the principles are ths same for your "Black boxes" You take the box out, get your supervisore to watch you put the box in then call over the Riggers to wirelock it

Edited April 7, 2009 by Mattie Bee

[John B (Sc)]

I have read in to this one and In my opinion the court is correct.

The Aircraft was a ATR 42 and on the previous flight the same pilot snagged the Fuel Level Indicator.

A replacement was fitted but was the wrong type, that of a ATR 72, which is a larger aircraft so gave a 1800Kgs over reading.

No fuel was placed in to the aircraft over night and the Pilot noted in the morning that he had an increased fuel load but left without the refueling chit or confirming the situation after the dispatcher said he would look for it and give it to him when he gets back. My understanding is he must have that chit before he leaves, no matter what the dispatcher says.

Also when he had the double engine failure after numerous failed engine starts he did not feather the props which if he had would of enabled the aircraft to glide past the airport he was attempting to divert to.

I don't disagree but that the pilot demonstrated a level of incompetence I would find unacceptable in any pilot I trained Mattie. I would expect any worthwhile airline to fire him. My point is that lawyers, from the safety of a courtroom, should feel capable of judging this man's actions and view him as criminal in his actions. That to me is unreasonable and does nothing to advance air safety. While his actions were undoubtedly less than you or I would view as satisfactory, he did continue to fly the aeroplane and ditched it sufficiently well that most of the passengers survived. That doesn't make him a criminal. Saying the words of a prayer out loud while continuing to fly may have been his way of coping with the situation and avoiding freezing at the controls in a total panic. Is that more criminal than the more usual swear words we hear on cockpit voice recordings in extreme situations?

Edited April 7, 2009 by John B (Sc)

[JohnT]

My point is that lawyers, from the safety of a courtroom, should feel capable of judging this man's actions and view him as criminal in his actions. That to me is unreasonable and does nothing to advance air safety.

Sorry but can't really let that bit of lawyer bashing go ! I should declare an interest as I am a litigation lawyer to trade and not just a plastic hacker. I am afraid too many folks don't really understand what goes on in a law court and thats probably a fault with our education system that does not really teach people about the legal system and what it does - or more importantly what it does not do. All too often the public perception comes from tv and film which is about as true to life as your average Hollywood flick. I have yet to watch a film or tv series or read a book thats remotely like what happens in a law firm.

Firstly its not the job of the Court to advance air safety - Thats the job of the authorities investigating the accident and who will recommend the design and practise changes to prevent the accident happening again. The Courts function is to determine whether there has been death caused by gross negligence and to call those responsible to account.

I do a lot of professional negligence work. That does not make me an expert in medical matters, surveying, architecture or whatever the subject happens to be. I just ask those witnesses recognised as experts in their field whether what was done was negligent or not. They tell us and assist the Court to make a decision accordingly. And yes I have seen factors such as stress of the moment taken into account in determining whether or not there was negligence. To give a neutral example a mstake was made in an A & E Dept of a busy city hospital with serious consequences for the patient on a Saturday night with staff hopelessly overstretched with an unexpected crisis. The decision reached was if it been quiet there would have been a case for to answer but in the circumstanes the error was forgivable.

Pilots and engineers are subject to the same laws that require prosecutions for death caused by gross negligence in every other walk of life. Corporate manslaughter is becoming a developing area of law allowing prosecutions where manufacturers and service providers are grossly negligent to the point where life is unecessarily lost. I am always saddened at the loss of a flyer. The old adage that the pilot is the first on the scene of the accident is always true. Due allowance must always be given for the heat of the moment.

But the situation is totally different where an airline takes short cuts in its maintaining of aircraft for economic reasons only that not only prejudices air safety but the public and aircrew whose lives are put at risk and sadly sometimes lost as a result.

Please don't blame lawyers for providing access to justice for people who need it. We all might need one one day.

And for the guys out there some free divorce advice -

dont - you cant afford it !!

regards

John

[TonyT]

Even if you saw somebody else 'appear to do it' just ask yourself - was it done in accordance with the pubs, right parts, right consumables, right tooling - set correctly etc?

Safety is no accident!

Rob M.

And that statement is full of holes. Speaking from one who knows, I have had BRAND NEW Engines from the manufacturer that have had incorrect parts fitted for the version of the said engine, I missed it, it was only an unlicenced engineeer that spotted it during routine maintenance, you get to a point of where do you stop? do you accept what the Manufacturer is saying to you and accept an Engine as it arrives or do you strip it down and examine it to the ninth degree? even then after resolving the issues, and remember even after that is resolved and another part fails because you can see it has been made incorrectly, the manufacturer will send out replacement parts and after your old parts have been returned will not say anything because they are then admitting liability, the only time you know you were right is when they do not bill you for the replacement parts...

We pay over £5,000 a year for for current pubs from one of the 2 major companies worldwide, but following a discussion with another company we found the computer based pubs on certain Aircraft were not up to date...... therefore you are again playing wth one hand tied behind your back, even the Aircraft manufacturers manuals are not up to date from them, I managed to track down a little known service letter which most current systems will not flag up issued by them saying they would update the manual to contain the said information in due course... That was issued in 1985 ish !!! 24 years later we are STILL WAITING......... I realise this is not the place to discuss things which to be frank the majority on here will not understand..

EASA the European Safety Agency is far from it, it in my eyes appears to have based its standards on the lowest denominator in the countries involved, so hundreds of CAA safety items were simply removed from the CAA system when we changed over..... we now have to go by what the Aircraft Manufacturers manuals state, but even those conflict with what the Engine manufacturer tells you......

A recent case which I wont go into as it is subject to an MOR involved spares sourced from a legitimate source that answered every criteria you mention but were incorrect because somewhere along the line oversize items had been mixed up......

To be Human is fallible and I am sorry to disagree with you JohnT but accidents do and will always happen, all one can do is try to lessen the chances of it happening, to hound those people trying to do their best and who have made a mistake will not improve the system, just make the system refuse to discuss and improve if they fear prosecution for bringing forth issues.... Alaska Air was one such case, one person their spoke up on what he saw as being life threatening, he lost his job over it, his family and home life was wrecked and later that same part on the same aircraft finally said," hey, I have had enough of this" and as he predicted failed, those airbourne at the time all perished........ No wonder people keep their heads down when you have that and the possibility of prosecution hanging over your head. I am afraid my view of your profession it that as ambulance chasers... I had one such Lawyer once try to tell me my job was not a profession, I pointed out that every job I did every day in and out for the last 30 years was one where people could and would die if I screwed up, could he say the same thing, he went quiet, apologised and made his exit right in short time.

One thing that really pisses me off is when you see the likes of Airline when you get passengers banging on about their flight being delayed or cancelled because it has gone tech, we do not do this for our pleasure but to ensure under really stressful conditions that the Aircraft is safe to fly in..... The old adage, I would rather be sitting in the terminal looking up into the sky wishing I was up there, than sitting in the Aircraft looking down at the ground wishing I was down there holds force..... the problems involved with Aviation is you have to be 100% all of the time, you cannot be less, a car can roll to the side of the road when its engine stops, a single Aircraft half way across the pond simply cannot, you are without being sentimental in this, DEAD!

Edited April 7, 2009 by TonyT

[John B (Sc)]

John T,

This is getting rather far from the original point of this thread. However - lawyer bashing. I will happily 'bash' any 'ambulance chasers - and there are far too many of that sort of lawyer popping up in UK now. The 'no win no fee' types who take on any case, for a carefully set sum so that it becomes cheaper to settle than to fight a spurious load of nonsense. We have several of those obnoxious creatures up here, and they do your profession no favours at all. They would claim what they are doing is for the good of all, in fact they are simply vampires working the system and lining thei rown pockets.

To a large extent this is because of the flawed political and media circuses in this increasingly absurd country. Strange how many politicos are legal types, isn't it? You'd think the place should be much better run.

I have worked with some very fine lawyers and QCs, have acted both as expert witness and an adviser to Crown Counsel before now, so I do know how impressive some of your profession can be. Fun folk too.

My point in this case & thread follows from yours. Maintenance issues, yes, follow through. Failure under signature is criminal. Piloting decisions ? - If the Italian court had taken the opinion of pilot & training experts, I do not believe they would arrived at this result for the pilots. It does nothing for air safety at all. It is a classic example of how not to encourage safe behaviours. I teach on this topic. I am very aware of how much time, expertise & money is now wasted in this country acting 'defensively' to avoid litigation in all professions. As a very fine example, talk to any NHS doctor about that. Many millions are wasted solely for this. Litigation is largely down to you guys.

And let us not have any more coroners pretending they know anything about aircraft design. That demonstrated he didn't know how to winnow what was said to him and apply basic logic.

Regards,

John B

Edited April 8, 2009 by John B (Sc)

[Rob M.]

And that statement is full of holes.

Quite so - I was pointing out some of the reasons that even if you've observed somebody else doing a task, it doesn't mean THEY'VE done it correctly.

As an aircraft fitter of some 15 years experience prior to becoming a Flight Test Engineer I have been asked on occasion to sign for other peoples work. I never have - as a matter of both principle and good practice!

I agree that you can receive defective (even bogus) parts from suppliers, however, if they have the correct serviceable paperwork and following a pre-fit check there if are no obvious defects, then I find it difficult to accept that a court could find the fitter negligent.

Cheers,

Rob M.

[JohnT]

Hi John B

For what its worth I don't like ambulance chasers either though in reality most of these guys are not lawyers but a new "profession" of claims firms that punt on cases - at a price - to law firms after milking them for a turn first. Won't touch it myself and I never have an empty desk !

At the risk of over simplifying I worry we are becoming too "American" in our outlook as a society and that ambulance chasing is just one symptom of that. ( and my sons godmother is a US citizen so I am not anti US !) These claim firms wouldn't do it if Joe Public didn't call them.

Just get hacked off a tad at my profession being a soft target most of the time when just about everyone I know are decent hard working guys etc often for modest bucks and we never really see the types that get so much prominence in the public eye.

Getting back to the thread though I have much sympathy for overworked mechanics struggling with complex work and out of date or incorrect manuals ! How can anyone expect them to get it right in that scenario? No legal liability on them in that situation though employer/ manufacturer or supplier of manual might be in trouble.

Very interesting thread guys - deserves a wider audience and more appreciation by our "masters"

John T

[spike7451]

TY JohnT,

I saw it on E-Goat & thought that as the are a few serving A/C techs & Aircrew here,that they may have missed it.

Interesting replies chaps,

Merv

[John B (Sc)]

Cheers JohnT.

I can appreciate your feelings & certainly didn't mean to imply that all lawyers were of the same ilk. Generalising always runs that risk.

It is an interesting thread, and a difficult quandary. There is a fine balance sometimes between educating folk to prevent further errors - when we mostly want full disclosure of what went wrong, so everyone else can learn, and heading for some form of punishment / deterrence as the only way to ensure compliance. On balance for both engineering & flying I've tended to incline to education and to encourgae open admission of cock-ups - mine and others - as being a good way to reduce repetition. It really only works with the willing of course.

( And our society seems to going in a different direction. I'm not at all happy with this idea of asking the victim if he/she is happy with the scale of punishment meted out. None of his/her business I feel. Once the 'justice system', whatever it is, has become involved, I feel the scale of punishment is a mattter for society as a whole, not for the individual to determine. Mind you , I believe in a rather more robust punishment than our current system seems to approve. The old IoM set up had something to recommend it, IMO.

I don't feel that being grabbed firmly by the lughole and ticked off by my local policeman did me any harm. And I knew if I tried any silly nonsense I'd probably get a boot up the rear, Probably fairly gently if truth be known. It was the indignity as mauch as actual pain that did the job...)

John B

[Julien]

I have read in to this one and In my opinion the court is correct.

The Aircraft was a ATR 42 and on the previous flight the same pilot snagged the Fuel Level Indicator.

A replacement was fitted but was the wrong type, that of a ATR 72, which is a larger aircraft so gave a 1800Kgs over reading.

No fuel was placed in to the aircraft over night and the Pilot noted in the morning that he had an increased fuel load but left without the refueling chit or confirming the situation after the dispatcher said he would look for it and give it to him when he gets back. My understanding is he must have that chit before he leaves, no matter what the dispatcher says.

Also when he had the double engine failure after numerous failed engine starts he did not feather the props which if he had would of enabled the aircraft to glide past the airport he was attempting to divert to.

You are 100% right on both counts. While the mistake of not freathering the props and choosing to ditch could be overlooked in the stressfull situation. The ATR test pilot who flew the simulator to a landing even said that it was easy for him to do it as he was not worrying about his life and those of the passengers, he know he could just turn the sim off.

The fact that the pilot left without getting the fuel recipt was in direct contravention of all the rules. No refueling chit then no go, otherwise how can you be certain that the fuel is there.

Also the fact that the mechanic fitted thr wrong instrument. Not enought was made in my opinion of the fact that the manufactuer made the two instruments identical in every way apart from the small model number. You would have thought the instrument from one airfraft would not fit into another with such drastic results.

Julien

[Alan P]

I have to agree more with John B(Sc) in this discussion.

This does throw up some issues regarding the corporate manslaughter law. No-one deliberately goes off to work in aviation intending to kill people, so it's down to mistakes, bad judgement, or bad luck. If people are going to be jailed for those basic human errors, then it's the greatest miscarriage of justice ever conceived.

If an individual makes a mistake that leads to loss of life in their job, then it should be examined whether the mistake made was in context with the nature of the job, the mean skills of the workforce engaged in that duty, the complexity of the working environment, as well as the corporate culture within that company.

For example, a pilot causes a fatal crash by an error. In the first instance, could any pilot have made that mistake? Was it a typical human error?

If not, go up a step - was the error commensurate with that pilot's level of experience and training?

If not, go up another step - was that error of a "chain" nature - ie. the pilot's error was the final link in a chain of previous errors?

If so, go up another step - was that chain of error related to causal reasons (bad luck) or endemic in the culture of the company (cost-cutting, budgetary constraints, competitive pressure)?

You will see that as you go up each step, more people are involved and eventually can point to a corporate culture of sharp operation, financial pressure and individual coercion to keep the company operating in a competitive environment.

I am sick to death (maybe literally one day) of post-accident reports criticising poor company procedures, inadequate training manuals, under-resourced staffing levels, under-qualified and poorly-trained staff being coerced into acting far above their capability, and the inevitable silence that ensues from those other staff who just want to keep their jobs.

Corporate manslaughter law does absolutely nothing to stop these practices, or promote safety, it just increases the pressure on those of us at the sharp end. Now, our fallible human natures, and proneness to good old human error, places us not only in the ignominious position of being able to kill ourselves and hundreds of others, but also of going to jail, should we be lucky enough to survive. People who make simple human errors, that anyone of us could make, should not be sent to jail, period. You can train a lot of competence into a capable person, but you can't make them invulnerable to being a human being.

I sincerely doubt that if such a thing were to happen to me, I would be sharing my cell with the Director of Technical and Training, the Chief Executive or the Chairman of the Board. But if my accident happened due to non-causal factors directly connected with a coercive, overly-competitive and under-resourced corner-cutting operation, I would sincerely hope to be doing my time and sharing my guilt (that's the emotional version, not the legal one) with just those people.

And I know that's never going to happen. So where does that place corporate manslaughter in the league table of deterrence and/or increasing public safety?

[desmojen]

What a thoroughly sensible post, nice one phats!

You've hit the nail on the head imo, in the case of you or I, we would go to jail mostly because we have the quietest voice and thinnest wallet - me even more so than you. I am amazed that the pilot in question ended up in jail, from what I saw of it, he more things right than he did wrong. In my mind the cause of that crash has much more to do with the maintainer, and probably the company system than it did with the pilot.

As for military techies panicking because of new legislation, our signatures have always been legally binding, nothing has changed there. Working as I do in a docs office, I am probably more aware than most just how traceable things are.

Jen.

[TonyT]

As for military techies panicking because of new legislation, our signatures have always been legally binding, nothing has changed there. Working as I do in a docs office, I am probably more aware than most just how traceable things are.

Jen.

My old Engine chief used to sign everything in the RAF as Rastus ..................

It was only in his last six months that he told us and sure enough when we looked back, everything was clearly signed RASTUS. He said he had done it since the day he joined up as a Joke initially then it just stuck, he had 2 Sigs, ones for real life and one for LaLa Land ( RAF)

[JohnT]

People who make simple human errors, that anyone of us could make, should not be sent to jail, period. You can train a lot of competence into a capable person, but you can't make them invulnerable to being a human being.

Well argued post I thought. But you dont have to be an aircraft techie to run this risk. Everone of us does now that we get behind the wheel of a car. Until recently if you made a simple mistake/error while driving and it had unforseen but catastrophic consequences and someone died you would be prosecuted under S3 for careless driving and be fined/banned etc. The law accepted that the sad result of a death was an unintended and unforeseeable consequence of the error and that the driver should not be punished for such.

Now you can go to jail. That means losing your job, home and maybe consequentially your family too.

Remember we are not talking about death by reckless driving. That always was a more serious offence following on something more than an "honest error" mistake.

The problem was that sometimes a "wee" mistake made millions of times a day without anything more than a minor bump - if that - ended unexpectedly in a death. Famillies of the deceased were not concerned about the driver only making a small error and wanted jail time. Politicians just couldn't say no and changed the law leaving it to judges to sort out the "hard cases" and be lenient. But make no mistake, if you get involved in a low speed accident and someone dies you can be looking at jail time even for a split second lapse of concentration.

So if we accept that as a rule for the road in principle where do we draw the line?

Personally I think its bad law but I don't get to make the rules ! There would be more holidays for starters and at least 1 free model per household every week

JohnT

Edited April 15, 2009 by JohnT

[TonyT]

People who make simple human errors, that anyone of us could make, should not be sent to jail, period. You can train a lot of competence into a capable person, but you can't make them invulnerable to being a human being.

Well argued post I thought. But you dont have to be an aircraft techie to run this risk. Everone of us does now that we get behind the wheel of a car. Until recently if you made a simple mistake/error while driving and it had unforseen but catastrophic consequences and someone died you would be prosecuted under S3 for careless driving and be fined/banned etc. The law accepted that the sad result of a death was an unintended and unforeseeable consequence of the error and that the driver should not be punished for such.

Now you can go to jail. That means losing your job, home and maybe consequentially your family too.

Remember we are not talking about death by reckless driving. That always was a more serious offence following on something more than an "honest error" mistake.

The problem was that sometimes a "wee" mistake made millions of times a day without anything more than a minor bump - if that - ended unexpectedly in a death. Famillies of the deceased were not concerned about the driver only making a small error and wanted jail time. Politicians just couldn't say no and changed the law leaving it to judges to sort out the "hard cases" and be lenient. But make no mistake, if you get involved in a low speed accident and someone dies you can be looking at jail time even for a split second lapse of concentration.

So if we accept that as a rule for the road in principle where do we draw the line?

Personally I think its bad law but I don't get to make the rules ! There would be more holidays for starters and at least 1 free model per household every week

JohnT

I totally agree with the quoted statement, I personally thought it was wrong to Jail the driver of the landrover who used to offroad it and lost his Children in the Horrific accident. From my position as a Layman he never intended to kill his beloved Children and the grief and loss he will be suffering far outweighs any Jail sentence that was or could handed down, he never deliberately set out to kill is young family and to persecute him further for what was a tragic accident seems in at least my eyes to serve no real purpose and is not Justice, If he had set out to kill his family intentionally, then yes, but this was not that, it was just a catalogue of errors that had tragic consequences of which he will have to try to live with for the rest of his life....

[Guest squezzer]

Since a few years, we have been told, in the french airforce, that, if we are involved in an accident wich causes injuries or death, we could sustain a double punishement, one under the military reglemntation, one under the civilian "regular" law and could be charged with homicide. We have also been told that if we have made a mistake that led to the accident we could be protected by the government. But this protection is cancelled if you are convice of being negligent or lazzy (you commit a fault). The border beetween the mistake and the fault relies on the court judgment and then, the limit is not very clear.