Pilot found not guilty of negligence
In a landmark case, a pilot has been ruled not guilty of professional negligence, after he was involved in a horrifying crash.
The pilot was responsible for the terrifying aviation collision when he crashed in a busy street but was this month found not negligent.
In a 35-page decision, the court of Appeal overturned one conviction of criminal negligence causing death and four convictions of criminal negligence resulting in personal injury against the former air pilot. He was however, found guilty of dangerous operation of an aircraft.
Former Bench Justice Holly Beard convicted the pilot in 2007, after ruling he had no reasonable excuse for running out of fuel. In March 2008, he was sentenced to two years house arrest.
While the defendant’s fuel calculations were clearly faulty, his conduct otherwise “did not show a complete disregard for the consequences of his actions,” wrote Justice Barbara Hamilton.
“However flawed his conduct was in addressing the sufficiency of the fuel for the flight, I am of the view that this conduct, when considered in the context of all the evidence, is not conduct that meets the very high threshold of wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of other persons,” Hamilton wrote.
The crash that changed lives
When the incident took place, the pilot was carrying six passenger aboard a twin-engine plane. The collision occurred in June 2002.
The plane plummeted after it ran out of fuel during a flight back to the desired destination. A 79-year-old passenger died from his injuries three months later.
During the trial, the pilot blamed the crash on faulty fuel gauges. He said he inspected the plane's gauges before takeoff and believed he had plenty of fuel for the return trip.
The Court heard that he had complained to his chief pilot but he didn't have a working autopilot on the plane and no measures were taken to replace or fix it.
Defence lawyer Belfour Der, also argued that he also wasn't supplied with a co-pilot, a move that might have prevented the accident.
A retired pilot who testified on the defendant’s behalf said small air services often overlook safety requirements if they cut into profits.
Beard said the pilot was a “fine person who made a terrible mistake” and rejected the Crown's assertion that he was trying to save his own reputation when he delayed alerting air traffic controllers of his dire situation. “[He] responded to the emergency in a calm and professional manner,” she said.
Improving safety standards can more effectively be achieved by enforcing regulations, not by “locking up pilots after the fact,” Beard pointed out.
Beard said she hoped her ruling would be a signal to the airline industry that placing profits over safety is criminal behaviour, and during a financial downturn, cutbacks should not be placed over passenger safety.
Updated on 03/01/2010