JetBlue Flight 191 Pilot sues Airline
 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...n-sues-airline

Put me on the jury and this guy gets ZERO $. He is lucky he is not in jail.

The sad thing? Soon others will follow him... :rolleyes:

Only in America! :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

This pilot needs proper psychological treatment. That is it.

Zero money, if I am on the jury! Take a look at the video of this guy, the passengers had to hold him down. That is JetBlue's problem? :confused:

Perhaps JetBlue needs to VET their employees better. This is not the first time.
JetBlue needs to lawyer up and give this guy zero. The pilot says his name was smeared in the media. Who caused that? :confused:

Only with American legal system- take it on contingency and hope the insurance company settles to send you away.

Maybe JetBlue could settle this dispute by admitting that they should have nipped this problem in the bud by not hiring him. :p

Did some of the preceding posters even read the linked article?!?!

The guy is suing because he feels the airline should have easily spotted that he was not fit to fly (appearance, demeanour, disorientation, missed pre-flight briefing all allegedly indicating that something was wrong). He is not arguing that he was fit to fly.

It is irrelevant how many people it took to hold him down. As to the compensation... If the airline is shown to have been negligent by allowing him to fly that day... he and all others on board may be rightly entitled.

If the pilot has good evidence, this will be interesting to watch.

By the way, in the Germanwings case, I am sure the French prosecutor will be looking at airport surveillance to observe the first officer's pre-flight behaviour. Depending on what - if anything - shows up in these tapes, the criminal responsibility and civil liability issues might surface there as well (e.g. against the airline, the airport, individuals).

Please delete

In my opinion this is a shameless effort to profit off a terrible tragedy (grant it, he appears to have filed on the last day of eligibility so I concede it also could be an unfortunate coincidence).

While I understand what you are saying blue2002 (or paraphrasing from the article), does that really make sense? Should your employer send you to a pysch eval if you miss a phone call or are frazzled? It's pretty common to see people worked up before/during the early parts of a presentation, after running late to something, after speaking to certain people and the list goes on; are they in imminent danger of a "severe mental disease or defect"?

Pilots are supposed to evaluate themselves before flights and gauge risk. It's part of ADM (Aeronautical Decision Making http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...cumentid/22624) process. I am only familiar with the scoring for private aviation, but surely the pilot should have realized there was some concern.

The former pilot should count his blessings that he's not in prison or paying for the diversion and move on. It's sad his career is over, but I'm sure he can still find work in the industry.

Which prosecutor?

So he doesn't exist yet, the final report will not be in for a long time, and still you are convinced that he'll try to smear some residual blame on those who did not kill 150 people?
"Criminal responsibility" certainly not. If Germanwings does sell tickets in the US, then some lawyer akin the one who helps your Jetblue expilot may file claims, indeed.

In France, civil aviation accidents are investigated, automatically, as criminal acts. In the Germanwings case, the States Attorney of Marseille is investigating as is the BEA (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile).

A sales presentation is a good example (and one with which I can easily identify). If I (or someone else) showed up for a client presentation with a shirt not tucked in their pants, a questionable tie and a slurred speach... My guess is someone would pull me to the side and tell me to "sit this one out". This with no human lives hanging in the balance. Now, if I was to pilot a plane full of people instead of a deck of slides, I would expect my colleagues to scrutinize me even closer. Not sure what the legal verdict will be, but from the common sense and ethics perspective I think this one is pretty clear cut.

In the wake of the Germanwings disaster we can pretty much kiss this one goodbye. Besides, the JetBlue pilot is claiming he was incapacitated and unable to make the judgement for himself. As long as he did not intentionally incapacitate himself (e.g. by knowingly ingesting controlled substances), he may have a case.

No civilized society should send someone to jail because they fell ill... if he indeed had a stroke.

Huh? The French prosecutor is Bryce Robin. In Germany Christoph Kumpa is the spokesman for the Dusseldorf prosecutor's office. What are you talking about?

I'd urge you to consider the legal and common sense ramifications of this case by expanding outside these specific set of facts. Should anyone with a role in public safety be subject to a mental/pysch eval at the drop of a hat? Driving puts "human lives in the balance" and is more dangerous than flying, so are all drivers included? Do the benefits here really outweigh the costs? What happens in a disaster, are all persons immediately sent home to await mental/pysch evals before they can begin their duties? It sounds crazy but that's what is being advocated. :rolleyes:

Put your example in context of the complaint: sales person missed one call and seemed distracted but able to discuss the sales points with others in immediate preparation for the meeting. Happens all the time. People get nervous or have other items on their mind.

ADM and CRM are more important than ever. Crews need to work together and monitor each other to prevent minor incidents from becoming major accidents, including honest self assessments.

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.

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

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.

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.@:-)

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

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?

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.

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.

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