Cloudyprop wrote:
would you (or should you) report your experience to the authorities whilst the investigation is on, or let the professionals do their job without interference?
Why wouldn’t you? It’s a serious question, what makes you wonder about whether you should tell the investigators what you know ? There are lots of answers to that question, and only you know your answer. Also, if you were investigating an accident, wouldn’t you like to know as much as possible?
I’m sure the investigators would take your information with a grain of salt anyway. They wouldn’t “do” anything with it other than perhaps ask his previous instructors and others he have flown with. But, information it is nonetheless, and it could prove useful to the investigators. That’s for the investigators to find out, not you
Silvaire wrote:
My morality would dictate that I mind my own business, not the converse.
What morality is that?
arj1 wrote:
And that changes it. I think if you’ve already reported them to a CFI, well in that case all you could do is to advise the investigators that such a report has been made on that date.
I agree with that.
arj1 wrote:
And be prepared to testify in court!
By why should there be a trial? Assume the pilot crashed because in a difficult situation he was not Chuck Yeager but maybe the opposite. Still all check pilots to this point concluded his performance was still ok. So who should be charge in a trial? The estate for assumed general sub standard performance? If that goes through half of humanity should be in jail for sub standard performance in many trades. Or sue the last check pilot. He will say the performance on that day was acceptable. It will be impossible to prove otherwise.
On a broader scene what could be done? New rules maybe the same check pilot can not sign off a pilot more than 2 times in a row? A GoPro recording of all check flights to be archived for later review? Unfortunately some are simply not up to the task but can be trained enough to pass all exams just to fail the next day. Colgan Air 3407 is the prime example…
Post deleted. Keep this non-personal, please.
Sebastian_G wrote:
arj1 wrote: And be prepared to testify in court!By why should there be a trial?
@Sebastian_G, I did not say you WILL BE testifying, but that in case there are relatives that want to sue, you might end up in court as a witness. If people sue in most ridiculous circumstances, then you might have to, if you have contacted the investigators – you ARE a witness.
Sebastian_G wrote:
By why should there be a trial?
I agree it is unlikely in this case, but there could still be civil claims against the pilot’s estate. In some countries, the complete docket will be made available to the law enforcement agencies and therefore anyone appearing on it would be in danger of being dragged to court. In the worst case, someone could try to sue a withness for slander. Or quite possibly, the fact the school was informed but did not act could cause a liability case. Unfortunately in today’s world there are very few “accidents that just happened” but in the legal sense, someone always will be found guilty and he or his estate has to pay.
However, whether in Germany the BFU would actually forward the names of their sources I don’t know but given the way they write their reports, I doubt it, they are very careful with their interpretation of Annex 13 to the letter. So I would not see a big risk here to be dragged into legal action as somone who gives a hint to the BFU.
In the original intent, ANNEX13 was clearly written with flight safety in mind and excludes any legal impact of their reports. Some countries do it justice, others don’t .
Does anyone know (roughly) how many GA accidents end up in court due to the pilot’s estate being sued by the families of the bereaved and how many cases are successful?
That information is not collected, except sometimes in famous cases e.g. Graham Hill (previous threads). It obviously does happen, probably quite often. Nothing to lose, why not go for it. A few hundred k or more comes in handy…
One would need to do some legwork and dig up court records.
My guess, where the pilot is not alive to defend himself, the vast majority of passenger-fatal crashes do result in a passenger claim (simply because it is a no-brainer). But the vast majority of those are settled quietly between the insurer and the claimant. I don’t know how often the claimant is represented by lawyers; probably quite often (see e.g. threads on the German “gross negligence” topic), and only a small % will come to a court.
LeSving wrote:
Why wouldn’t you? It’s a serious question, what makes you wonder about whether you should tell the investigators what you know ? There are lots of answers to that question, and only you know your answer. Also, if you were investigating an accident, wouldn’t you like to know as much as possible?I’m sure the investigators would take your information with a grain of salt anyway. They wouldn’t “do” anything with it other than perhaps ask his previous instructors and others he have flown with. But, information it is nonetheless, and it could prove useful to the investigators. That’s for the investigators to find out, not you
I’m not sure that another person chipping in with their view of the pilot’s competency or otherwise is helpful. If the investigators consider it important to the investigation then they will seek opinion, I’m sure. Accident reports generally focus, with regard to the pilot, principally on whether they were legal and current. These are relatively objective matters. On the subjective, UK reports often make complimentary references to the deceased if they have been encountered during the investigation – statements like “instructors and other pilots described the accident pilot as conscientious and careful” and “the pilot appeared relaxed and good spirits” are commonplace in AAIB fatal reports but the contrary is much more rare, probably because of a taboo about speaking ill of the dead. If the pilot was illegal (objective) then they tend to just state it and refrain from following up with observations about an obvious or evident cavalier attitude (subjective).
As @Peter says, many/most GA accidents involve pilots who, assuming they hang out with other pilots in some way, have gained a bit of a reputation. It will be very obvious to the investigators when they are dealing with one of these and they probably don’t need you to tell them.
On the morality I’m with @Silvaire. It’s the age-old question about whether you are your brothers’ keeper or not. I can only come down on the ‘not’ side, because if you decide you are then its impossible to draw a line at any objective point. Where does your legitimate concern and safety-enhancing intervention become the meddlesome interference of a know-all busybody?
In any case, my experience is that someone’s willingness and enthusiasm to report information and/or opinions about someone else, or otherwise interfere, usually says more about that person than it does about anyone else.
My guess, where the pilot is not alive to defend himself, the vast majority of passenger-fatal crashes do result in a passenger claim
Of course, why not it’s an insured liability? it’s insurance who pays and they usually have provisions for that, the insurance, however, may come back on pilot assets & estate if the actual liability exceeds insured liability and the pilot has load of personal assets…if insurance does not pay, the pax may go directly after pilot for direct claim
The rule of thumb is that the insured liability should exceed actual liability and personal assets, then everyone is happy
Also, the pilot assets could be “well secured” or “automatically transferred” on his death (e.g. trust, will…), then good luck for insurance & pax in getting a nickel !
If you think you are just “bad mouthing” the pilot, then don’t bother.
If you think it will or might, help them understand what happened, then call them up and tell them what you have to say. Don’t embelish or downplay. Just the facts.
They are used to cranks and people with grudges to grind. They will be cautious about what you have to say, but it might help them cooberate other evidence and build thier picture of the pilot or give them another avenue in their enquiry.
edit: I don’t mean that you are a crank or have a grudge to grind. Justs that they won’t take what you say as fact, and it won’t be part of their findings unless they think it relevant themselves.
