HMO

Let's remember this guy was the Captain, the highest rank on board. Even with all the discretionary power FAA gave for the other crew member to take some action if they see something wrong, it's not easy to tell your superior he won't fly if the signals aren't so strong.

eajusa

There simply is not enough information in the Bloomberg article to make a judgment here.

weero

I am talking about that what you are doing is a word play with the non-immediate translation into English. The authorities are investigating the incident in both countries. No one is currently being charged or prosecuted.

Also your assertion that third parties who should have been more attentive to the behaviour of the copilot will be prosecuted for negligence, is - given that the current scenario of the lone perpetrator survives into the final report - based on no precedence.
Not for falling ill. for their actions.

But the particular incident was too minor to trigger a fundamental decision in either direction.

blue2002

weero, sorry to say this, but you seem to have a challenge with reading comprehension.

(a) I did not play on words. German and French prosecutors ARE involved, simply because that is how things are done in these jurisdictions. I never said anyone is currently prosecuted.

(b) I never said that third parties should be prosecuted. I simply ventured a guess that they might.

Sometimes less is more, and this goes for the post count as well.@:-)

blue2002

What about culpability? You don't make any sense.

weero

Well at least I can read French and German. What you are referring to has limited equivalence to the US situation.
I know roughly how things are done here in Europe, less how they work in the US. And while the authority investigating it, the Staatsanwaltschaft is translated as prosecutor's office, it only acts as the office of investigation at this stage. It's an administrative system, not an adversarial one.
You absolutely did in post #8. You were 'sure' the 'prosecutor' would go down your road.
I agree. Like all others here, I fail to see your motive for having to defend this man's tasteless jump on the bandwagon of the real crash.
Of course I don't if you keep madly changing the goal posts. #1 Agree, no one should be persecuted simply for being ill, #2 people should generally be held accountable for their actions. Alleviating or aggravating circumstances depend on many things, not just a degree of impairment, and so does #3 culpability. To my knowledge the 191 captain was no convicted of a criminal wrongdoing but held long term in a mental institution and is on probation to this day.

Where's the remote evidence that he'd still have his job and dignity if he was booted from that cockpit earlier?

blue2002

Your point?Agreed. I never asserted otherwise.

Agreed. I never asserted otherwise.

We are back to "reading comprehension". "should" is not the same as "I am sure they will".

I am not here to defend anybody. I am merely speculating on how this case may unfold. What is your motive?

You can't see the goal posts for the trees.
There you go. We do agree on some things, it appears.

There is none and I never asserted there was.

weero

None anymore as it seems that we agree on the facts ... so skip forward.
Maybe I am doing you injustice but to partially quote you from post #8:
So while you are cautious about the consequences, you assert that the incident will be probed in that light.

Now of course neither of us does know the real (or 'best') story until the final report will have come out. But if the story of the lone, insane, deliberate mass murderer holds up, there is no way that third parties would be investigated for criminal negligence or wrongdoing. If it doesn't hold up or not to the full extend, then yes, what you describe will happen.
Very simple - like the others here, I am outraged that this pilot - maybe stimulated by some ambulance chaser - tries to monetise the death of 150 people. For three years, he quietly lived with his minor wrongdoing (which had grave consequences for his freedom and his life) and now he found a pilot that did more wrong than he did.
Fair enough ... but he does. Or at least the article claims that he does. So I think you should not defend him or his case or whatever you are defending exactly.

But yes you could well be right regarding the JetBlue case. I know little of the complex US liabilities. But I am also convinced that no parallels to the GermanWings disaster can be drawn from there.

Of course there is always the very real chance that the article distorts and misrepresents the claim of the pilot, I just use it at face value for my view here.

blue2002

I will just re-quote my earlier response:
Otherwise we are good here.