The weather at SFO was what in the old days we called "CAVU" - you could not have better weather for flying, and pilots learn before they take instrument training to fly Visual Flight Rules. The ILS has been out for a month at SFO 28 and everyone landing on 28L has had no problems landing without ILS; it seems PAPI was available as well as other instrumented aids, not to mention the trained human eyeball, Mark I.
It's also instructive to recall, that, if a pilot believes conditions are dangerous to the aircraft or passengers, they have the ability (obligation) to refuse any instruction from Air Traffic Control. With four cockpit crew, including some very experienced personnel, they could have rejected ATC instructions, made alternate requests, etc.
To be held criminally liable they would have to be found criminally negligent, etc. by a court.
None of this means they committed errors, which from the findings so far it appears was done - but the NTSB investigation is still in its preliminary stages, so there's no reason to begin to make judgments we are not in the position to make.
This is a good time to teach a lesson to a curious child, IMO, in jurisprudence, in patience, in waiting to see what is developed in terms of evidence, due process, etc. etc. rather than acting hastily on the basis of imperfectly drawn conclusions based on media excitement, etc.
(Sometimes, albeit rarely, it is genuinely simple, such as the Air Botswana incident in 1999 when a pilot took a BAe 146 into the air, then dove into the remaining fleet and destroyed it - virtually anything is more nuanced.)
Originally Posted by
satman40
The contractor who put the ILS out of service would be listed as a co defendant in the action along with the inspector who keep the runway open.
Wonder if they had approach lights,
Yes the pilot is blaming his self, rest assured. the flight cabin crew will blame them self. It was a joint effort.