Indonesia Air Asia flight QZ 8501 loses contact with ATC

[Deleted member 29185]

some decisions might be considered negligent, others might not. and you can even have it both ways... some systems which can and that can't be overridden.

if on any airplane a design flaw overrides something critical, there is potentially a case to be answered in negligence. A government would then need to overrule the court if it was to decide there should be a system which could lead to the loss of a plane. That's not usually something likely to happen.

As with all these things - it depends on the facts, and what a court ultimately decides.

I don't think I agree with law courts being the ultimate decider of which systems should be able to be overridden and which shouldn't. Law courts and coroners courts may certainly be the appropriate forum for ascertaining cause of deaths and negligence but surely an international panel of engineers backed by governments able to instigate laws required would be more suited to decide critical systems override ability. I think the issue may be very complex as every case for pilot override ability, will be tempered by a counter argument to prevent it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I don't think I agree with law courts being the ultimate decider of which systems should be able to be overridden and which shouldn't. Law courts and coroners courts may certainly be the appropriate forum for ascertaining cause of deaths and negligence but surely an international panel of engineers backed by governments able to instigate laws required would be more suited to decide critical systems override ability. I think the issue may be very complex as every case for pilot override ability, will be tempered by a counter argument to prevent it.

It depends. A law court is the right place to determine if an action is negligent.

We only need to look at some recent events to know that governments and experts can get it seriously wrong.

Legal review, including accountability (and sometimes compensation), is a way to analyse that and get (force) improvement.

 

[dajop]

Legal review, including accountability (and sometimes compensation), is a way to analyse that and get (force) improvement.

Safety professionals may beg to differ. Often legal cases look to attribute blame to someone/somebody and often overlook many contributing factors. There's an interesting book on the subject (name and author escape) that discusses a patient death and the nurse involved was prosecuted and a whole heap of other contributing factors were overlooked in the quest for a scapegoat.

Often the shape and framework of a legal proceeding will lead down a certain path. Professional (aviation) safety investigators are probably the correct people to get to an answer.

 

[jb747]

There are a number of countries in the world in which the legal overrides the safety people in the aftermath of an accident. They are only interested in blame, not in fixing the problem. It is the worst possible outcome.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm not disputing safety experts have an important role to play. But so does the legal system.

A court might find negligence, but they don't generally propose a remedy to the problem. That's for the safety experts to go back to the drawing board.

Compensation and/or penalties (whether actually imposed, or prospective) can provide a good incentive to fix issues. It holds people accountable.

 

[jb747]

And it's pretty well totally destructive of any system that uses voluntary reporting for most of its gains.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And it's pretty well totally destructive of any system that uses voluntary reporting for most of its gains.

But there is a difference between design, processes, and procedures and pilot action.

I think I make a pretty fair assumption when I get on a plane that the pilots aren't wanting to do me harm. But if the airline, regulators or manufacturers have failed (for example not checking credentials, or implementing safety directives, or whatever), those require accountability.

 

[jb747]

Presumably none of them wanted to do you harm either. And generally, design faults aren't the intent of the engineers, they just happen. A lot of very bad ideas only seem that way in retrospect. And, if you're going to make the blunt end accountable, you cannot get around making the pointy end accountable either. The police already seem to assume that blame is always the case in car accidents...the same would happen in the air.

As a pilot, if you've had things go wrong, and you're looking for a place to land, I don't want to add the legal lay of the land as something I have to consider...oh, yeh..I already do. Don't go to Japan, France, Greece, Italy, etc.

 

[tgh]

Really interesting discussion..

 

[Himeno]

As a pilot, if you've had things go wrong, and you're looking for a place to land, I don't want to add the legal lay of the land as something I have to consider...oh, yeh..I already do. Don't go to Japan, France, Greece, Italy, etc.

Such as how France treats air accident as crimes and law enforcement often bars access to the site, preventing BEA from investigating?
Or the time the Italian courts outright ignored an investagation report because they wanted to prosecute someone according to their theory.

 

[jb747]

Or perhaps the time the Italian police trained guns upon a crew that had suffered a very straightforward mechanical failure.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Presumably none of them wanted to do you harm either. And generally, design faults aren't the intent of the engineers,

This can be a touchy argument, but a deserving one none the less. I think MEL_Traveller is saying that negligence can occur within the legal system even though a huge effort, although possibly not everything humanly possible, was done to avoid the situation. I suggest there is such a thing as an accident that occurs despite all humanly possible precautions taking place, within a reasonable scope of expectation. As an electrician, I can say we (in Australia) are legally obliged to work to a set of standards that are regarded world-wide as some of the best.......but accidents can and do, still happen. There comes a point where customer convenience, decree that some level of risk is acceptable (imagine a life with no electricity, which would be the safest way to protect against electrocution or fire related electrical accident). The trouble is of course, when the very occasional hiccup occurs you have a posse of bloodhound toting rednecks with a law degree wanting to crucify someone. That someone is usually (but not necessarily) the one with the deepest pockets that is somehow remotely involved.

EDIT....I just reread my post and thought it wise to state I have not been "crucified". I make my observations purely based on the very few, minor (thankfully) court cases I have been involved with. I have left every one of them with a sense of total dismay at the pure bullcrap from both sides (mine included) which is given an incredible amount of consideration from the powers that be. Please don't misunderstand me, I do act within the law, but I also do worry at the process of law. In my opinion, it's bizarre to say the least.

 

[whatmeworry]

Co-Pilot at the helm when the plane crashed.

The co-pilot of an AirAsia flight that crashed into the Java Sea last month was at the controls when it went down, killing all 162 people on board.Al Jazeera's Step Vaessen reports from Jakarta.

[video=youtube_share;QFjGyDyrf_U]http://youtu.be/QFjGyDyrf_U[/video]

 

[jb747]

Which brings a 'so what' reaction from me. It takes a split second for the captain to take the aircraft back....

 

[OATEK]

Which brings a 'so what' reaction from me. It takes a split second for the captain to take the aircraft back....

Agree, on its own means nothing. But I seem to remember on AF447 there was an issue when more senior pilot tried to take back control not realising junior pilot was still pulling stick back. So its not so much about who was in control as much as what they did next?

 

[clazman]

Which brings a 'so what' reaction from me. It takes a split second for the captain to take the aircraft back....

Based upon the assumption he was in his seat....

 

[QF WP]

Which brings a 'so what' reaction from me. It takes a split second for the captain to take the aircraft back....

Based upon the assumption he was in his seat....

One wonders, if they do get to bring up the front part of the fuselage intact, whether they can ascertain if the captain was in his seat (being still in his belt will help). Obviously the flight recorders will help in that decision as well. I can't think that any captain would leave the coughpit with the weather as it was (unless emergency toileting was required).

So OATEK's comment needs answering (as to what were the inputs from both pilots):

Agree, on its own means nothing. But I seem to remember on AF447 there was an issue when more senior pilot tried to take back control not realising junior pilot was still pulling stick back. So its not so much about who was in control as much as what they did next?

Still more questions than answers...

 

[jb747]

All very true. A toilet break with nasty weather nearby is not a good idea...but easily planned around. Whether he was in the seat or not, system degradation or not, there is still no reason for any sort of pitch attitude change. The flight recorder will be very interesting. In any event, the FO's response will be doubly interesting in light of his lack of experience. As best I can tell, all the at the aircraft would have done with the failure of the two computers (which from today's unsubstantiated reports seems to have been a result of pulling the CBs), is drop to alternate law II, or perhaps direct law...neither of which should have been any sort of event.

In the case of AF447, not only did the junior pilot (who literally had no idea) continue to pull back, but apparently he pressed the override button. That is staggering in its stupidity.

 

[Quickstatus]

Discovery channel doing a show about 8501 and storm disasters tonight.

Interestingly not a lot of media leakage unlike Germanwings. Cynical me suggests authorities and Airbus do not have a scapegoat.

 

[eastwest101]

Apparently report finally released but details still a little sketchy at the moment. From reports I have read it looks like some sort of aircraft specific recurrent rudder problem with the pulling of circuit breakers and reversion to some sort of alternate flight law. Apparently conflicting side stick control inputs from both pilots resulting in a flat stalled spin into the ocean. No mention of loss of flight instruments, airspeed indicators or contributions of weather.