Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Will firefighter be charged after Asiana crash? Case is in prosecutor's hands
uthorities have completed an investigation into the death of a 16-year-old girl who survived the Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco, only to be run over by a fire truck. The case is now in the hands of the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office, which will decide whether the firefighter involved will face charges, CNN affiliate KPIX reported Wednesday. (www.cnn.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
ThanX dear friend JENNIFER JORDAN, for speaking for Law and Lawyers.
I distinctly remember that PhoroFinish stated in one of the comments that IF some that can be put under scanner, it can only be the guys who noticed the girl on ground and ASSUMED her for dead. And no one else.
And that seems to be the correct approach. Further, this attention on the truck driver seems totally misdirected and the DA's office seems to be aware of this. Perhaps, that is why the case is under their scrutiny. Chances are that they are NOT evaluating the role of the truck driver, BUT that of other personnel at the scene ! The objective being whether to charge some one OR to absolve every one and consider the death as an accident.
Simple, as I see it !
I distinctly remember that PhoroFinish stated in one of the comments that IF some that can be put under scanner, it can only be the guys who noticed the girl on ground and ASSUMED her for dead. And no one else.
And that seems to be the correct approach. Further, this attention on the truck driver seems totally misdirected and the DA's office seems to be aware of this. Perhaps, that is why the case is under their scrutiny. Chances are that they are NOT evaluating the role of the truck driver, BUT that of other personnel at the scene ! The objective being whether to charge some one OR to absolve every one and consider the death as an accident.
Simple, as I see it !
Actually I have been quite clear that the pilots through their gross negligence are the first and only ones who should be responsible for all damage and deaths resulting from the crash and any efforts to rescue the passengers from the crash, and/or fighting the fire that resulted from the crash.
Dear friend PhotoFinish, I will not be surprised if some information surfaces that even the SFO airport authorities are looking for legal provisions for claiming for the losses/damages that this chaos(air crash) caused to them(the airport) and all the related services.
That part is easy. SFO will send Asiana or their insurance company bill, and it gets paid. Simple as that.
Jennifer- I don't know how other countries train their Flight Attendants but in the U.S....with United... we have the "Green Light" to evacuate. Obviously, the Asiana Cabin Crew must wait for the cockpit crew to give them the order to "Bail"! Really an unfortunate situation as 60 to 90 seconds were lost in a major incident. Once they got the "green light", the Cabin Crew did a remarkable job and I comend them! In addition, during the mishap...waiting for the idiots up front to tell them to evac...they were putting out fires which saved many souls onboard. The whole accident chaps my ass because the so called pilots can't fly an airplane...hands on..VFR. What the hell were they doing when the aircraft was to low? "Gee..what button do I push now"! It all comes down to training and "hands on"! Don't wait until the unthinkable happens. Training...Training...Training! The Flight Attendants are the heroes!
My issue in all of this situation re: Asiana - SFO is pilot competance with ultra modern computer driven aircraft. Try if you can to think back to the Boeing 707 flight decks and how similar it may have been to all of the WW2 flight decks of the Dakota's and Boeings post war aircraft and with even current Cessna private general aviation set ups. They were and are very simple and intuative to trainee's and commercial pilots in the non airline sectors.
Also indulge yourselves and think back to the movie 'Airport' and Mr. Patroni guiding down the aircraft from the tower etc. because he and other knew what the flight deck looked like and the instruments the crew were looking at. Just this last week, a passenger was able to land a light aircraft when his pilot fell ill and the tower talked him down at Humberside Airport. UK. A simple flight deck.
Now consider the same incident in that movie but on the Asiana B777. Is it possible that Mr. Patroni could see what the FMC is showing? That device is capable of infinate screen information detail and could never help the pilot in the tower guide the aircraft to a relatively safe landing. This my argument, were the crew of the Asiana flight fully competant with the FMC regardless of whether they were familiar of SFO? The FMC and the other in built systems should have guided the aircraft onto the active runway, similar to any current Airbus when correctly set up by the pilots during pre-flight checks. I know from experience that an A340 can land itself blind if correctly set up. Is it so difficult now to use traditional cables, pulleys, hydraulics to land an aircraft so designed to be unstable in order to save weight and to allow computers to dictate what is safe even if the pilot thought differently?
Also indulge yourselves and think back to the movie 'Airport' and Mr. Patroni guiding down the aircraft from the tower etc. because he and other knew what the flight deck looked like and the instruments the crew were looking at. Just this last week, a passenger was able to land a light aircraft when his pilot fell ill and the tower talked him down at Humberside Airport. UK. A simple flight deck.
Now consider the same incident in that movie but on the Asiana B777. Is it possible that Mr. Patroni could see what the FMC is showing? That device is capable of infinate screen information detail and could never help the pilot in the tower guide the aircraft to a relatively safe landing. This my argument, were the crew of the Asiana flight fully competant with the FMC regardless of whether they were familiar of SFO? The FMC and the other in built systems should have guided the aircraft onto the active runway, similar to any current Airbus when correctly set up by the pilots during pre-flight checks. I know from experience that an A340 can land itself blind if correctly set up. Is it so difficult now to use traditional cables, pulleys, hydraulics to land an aircraft so designed to be unstable in order to save weight and to allow computers to dictate what is safe even if the pilot thought differently?
To recap: was the flight crew competent?
A more focused question, the answer to which I don't think is in doubt, "did the flight crew demonstrate competency?".
A more focused question, the answer to which I don't think is in doubt, "did the flight crew demonstrate competency?".
Joel, are any current airline pilots competent to fly a computer with wings if the batteries fail? My issue is with how these aircraft are designed whether or not if they are fuel efficient and the ultimate seat cost per flight is factored in, would you or I willingly walk into the cabin if we knew that if the flight crew fell asleep or became otherwise incapacitated, no one was able to penetrate the sealed door to the flight deck and perhaps be able to guide the aircraft to a runway with the aid of someone in a control tower?
I think the Asiana incident at SFO is not simply a pilot error situation but a modern aircraft architecture situation that will rear it's head again somewhere and we cannot prevent it because we do not know what may come next.....I love flying but I may just go by boat!
I think the Asiana incident at SFO is not simply a pilot error situation but a modern aircraft architecture situation that will rear it's head again somewhere and we cannot prevent it because we do not know what may come next.....I love flying but I may just go by boat!
In disagreeing with you on the issue of pilot error, I do agree you have a separate point.
With fly-by-wire (FBW), what happens if the 'wire' goes away? If all power fails, there are no cables to the control surfaces. Something akin to an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) will reduce electronics to scrap plastic. Should that happen, you essentially have a large aerodynamic rock.
Don't forget your magnetic compass, mechanical clock and sextant on the boat.
With fly-by-wire (FBW), what happens if the 'wire' goes away? If all power fails, there are no cables to the control surfaces. Something akin to an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) will reduce electronics to scrap plastic. Should that happen, you essentially have a large aerodynamic rock.
Don't forget your magnetic compass, mechanical clock and sextant on the boat.
I read law at University but do not practice because I much rather use my in built decency and look at the wider picture and balance the wider good. I consider theory better.
In this particular scenario, the aircraft failed to land correctly and discharge the passengers safely. However, all but two survived and that could be deemed miraculous. The pilots were not directly involved in the evacuation of the passengers so perhaps could be excused for any subsequent incidents outside of the aircraft for after all, it is the aircraft only they are responsible for together with the task of delivering the passengers/cargo to the destination as safely as is possible. The cabin crew were in charge of evacuation so were they responsible for the safety of the departing passengers?
The airfield emergency service personnel were dispatched to attend the incident so are they responsible for any subsequent injuries, fatal or otherwise, to those passengers on the airfield outside of the aircraft and not at the terminal buildings?
My concern is why should the fire truck personnel be charged with a homicide when by all measures they perhaps actually helped prevent the deaths of hundreds on scene? Should those killed accidentally be more aware of their own situation and helped themselves by being aware of where they were ( i.e on an active airfield )?
These are many of the hundreds of possible reasons why someone somewhere may wish initiate a legal action and perhaps for selfish monetary and wealth gaining reasons but I really cannot see why they should in this instance so is this a particularly US trait to prosecute for prosecutions sake rather than show balance and compassion to those caught up in a horrendous situation?