International Standards set forth by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) say that discipline or punishment for people involved in an aviation accident or incident is appropriate only if evidence shows that the occurrence "was caused by an act considered, in accordance with the law, to be conduct with intent to cause damage, or conduct with knowledge that damage would probably result, equivalent to reckless conduct, gross negligence or willful misconduct."
ICAO also says that the only objective of an accident or incident investigation should be to prevent future accidents and incidents, not to determine blame or liability of anyone involved in the occurrence-and, international aviation leaders say, not to supply data to criminal prosecutors.
In many cases, the risk that the threat of criminal prosecution places on the future safety of air travel greatly may outweigh and societal benefit in satisfying the inherent human desire for revenge or punishment in the wake of a terrible loss. The same sentiments were expressed in an October 2006 resolution approved by Flight Safety Foundation, the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Academie Nationale deIAir et deIEspace and the Civil Air Navigation Services Organization.
The resolution said, "The paramount consideration in an aviation accident should be to determine the probable cause and contributing factors in the accident, not to punish criminally flight crews, maintenance employees, airline or manufacturer executives, regulatory officials or air controllers. By identifying the ‘what' and the ‘why' of an accident, aviation safety professionals will be better equipped to address accident prevention for the future. Criminal investigation can and do hinder the critical information –gathering portions of an accident investigation, and subsequently interfere with successful prevention of future aviation industry accidents."
The joint resolution may assist prosecutors to step back and see the wisdom in preserving an existing aviation safety system that has worked remarkably well in reducing aviation accidents.
Towards a just culture and accountable officers.
Since the approval of the resolution, prosecutors generally become less likely to file charges against "people on the line," Voss said. Instead, the emphasis appears to have shifted to managers who were accountable for failed systems, he said."This is more consistent with what we talk about in good safety practices-the concept of accountable executives," he said."However ,it does still have a little bit of a chilling effect because it makes people in executive positions uncomfortable----It's a thing that's hard to celebrate ,but you also have to acknowledge that it probably reflects an emerging understanding of safety issues on the part of prosecutors."
In addition, he noted that the government agencies that investigate accidents have become increasingly likely in recent years to cite weak safety practices or safety cultures within aviation organizations among causes, or contributing factors, of accidents.
The International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations IFALPA found that in cases in which aviation personnel have been prosecuted for negligence, judges and juries often have been reluctant to convict. According to IFALPA "There is recognition that it is fundamentally wrong to convict someone criminally for trying to do their job. There are several examples where pilots have been acquitted. In each case, the pilot was attempting to respond to either malfunction or highly unusual circumstances and got it wrong. Where there have been convictions, the circumstances have been far more political than legal.
"IFALPA believes that all personnel should be held accountable for their decisions and actions in a safety –critical system.However, experience have shown that criminal prosecution makes no contribution to improving system safety".
Actions that do improve safety include accidents investigations, mandatory safety reporting schemes, and flight operational quality assurance (FOQA) programs and similar data analysis programs, all predicated on a "just culture". ICAO defines a just culture as a culture that recognizes that personnel should freely share critical safety information without fear of punishment while also accepting that, in some instances, there may be a need for punitive action .If this standard is met for these reporting programs, it is almost certain that the prosecutorial standards will be limited to intentional acts.
Voss said that,"for the sake of safety and a just culture, safety investigators, plus those who are being investigated must have complete confidence in the integrity of the process.
Achieving that trust will be difficult, he said, noting that the public and government officials frequently favor prosecution of those involved in accidents.
"We need to be realistic," Voss said.
"We're not going to get major changes in regulations, and we're not going to change any constitutions. We need to just talk to prosecutors so that they can do a better job of balancing the rights of individuals that are compromised as a result of an accident versus the needs of the public."
In future, the public likely will continue to demand punishment of aviation professionals who are involved in accidents and incidents .Nevertheless, the public sentiment cannot be permitted to override "the fundamental principle that punishment does not improve safety" because the threat of punishment-which may deter intentional acts-has no effect on unintentional errors that lead to accidents.
ICAO also says that the only objective of an accident or incident investigation should be to prevent future accidents and incidents, not to determine blame or liability of anyone involved in the occurrence-and, international aviation leaders say, not to supply data to criminal prosecutors.
In many cases, the risk that the threat of criminal prosecution places on the future safety of air travel greatly may outweigh and societal benefit in satisfying the inherent human desire for revenge or punishment in the wake of a terrible loss. The same sentiments were expressed in an October 2006 resolution approved by Flight Safety Foundation, the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Academie Nationale deIAir et deIEspace and the Civil Air Navigation Services Organization.
The resolution said, "The paramount consideration in an aviation accident should be to determine the probable cause and contributing factors in the accident, not to punish criminally flight crews, maintenance employees, airline or manufacturer executives, regulatory officials or air controllers. By identifying the ‘what' and the ‘why' of an accident, aviation safety professionals will be better equipped to address accident prevention for the future. Criminal investigation can and do hinder the critical information –gathering portions of an accident investigation, and subsequently interfere with successful prevention of future aviation industry accidents."
The joint resolution may assist prosecutors to step back and see the wisdom in preserving an existing aviation safety system that has worked remarkably well in reducing aviation accidents.
Towards a just culture and accountable officers.
Since the approval of the resolution, prosecutors generally become less likely to file charges against "people on the line," Voss said. Instead, the emphasis appears to have shifted to managers who were accountable for failed systems, he said."This is more consistent with what we talk about in good safety practices-the concept of accountable executives," he said."However ,it does still have a little bit of a chilling effect because it makes people in executive positions uncomfortable----It's a thing that's hard to celebrate ,but you also have to acknowledge that it probably reflects an emerging understanding of safety issues on the part of prosecutors."
In addition, he noted that the government agencies that investigate accidents have become increasingly likely in recent years to cite weak safety practices or safety cultures within aviation organizations among causes, or contributing factors, of accidents.
The International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations IFALPA found that in cases in which aviation personnel have been prosecuted for negligence, judges and juries often have been reluctant to convict. According to IFALPA "There is recognition that it is fundamentally wrong to convict someone criminally for trying to do their job. There are several examples where pilots have been acquitted. In each case, the pilot was attempting to respond to either malfunction or highly unusual circumstances and got it wrong. Where there have been convictions, the circumstances have been far more political than legal.
"IFALPA believes that all personnel should be held accountable for their decisions and actions in a safety –critical system.However, experience have shown that criminal prosecution makes no contribution to improving system safety".
Actions that do improve safety include accidents investigations, mandatory safety reporting schemes, and flight operational quality assurance (FOQA) programs and similar data analysis programs, all predicated on a "just culture". ICAO defines a just culture as a culture that recognizes that personnel should freely share critical safety information without fear of punishment while also accepting that, in some instances, there may be a need for punitive action .If this standard is met for these reporting programs, it is almost certain that the prosecutorial standards will be limited to intentional acts.
Voss said that,"for the sake of safety and a just culture, safety investigators, plus those who are being investigated must have complete confidence in the integrity of the process.
Achieving that trust will be difficult, he said, noting that the public and government officials frequently favor prosecution of those involved in accidents.
"We need to be realistic," Voss said.
"We're not going to get major changes in regulations, and we're not going to change any constitutions. We need to just talk to prosecutors so that they can do a better job of balancing the rights of individuals that are compromised as a result of an accident versus the needs of the public."
In future, the public likely will continue to demand punishment of aviation professionals who are involved in accidents and incidents .Nevertheless, the public sentiment cannot be permitted to override "the fundamental principle that punishment does not improve safety" because the threat of punishment-which may deter intentional acts-has no effect on unintentional errors that lead to accidents.
0 comments:
Post a Comment