What would you have done?

The plane is on the beach and 2 people who didn't sign on for the risks of general aviation are dead. What more do you need to know? Nobody "has" to fly an airplane. This little Piper might as well be a jet ski when viewed by the public. It's a toy.

 

I wonder what the plane's altitude was when the engine quit?

The pilot had enough time to make a radio call to the airport saying he was going to land on the beach, so I'm assuming he had at least a few thousand feet of AGL to work with.

I'd be curious if this pilot did a long straight-in approach following the edge of the beach or if he did the "downwind, turn to base, turn to final" type of approach.

If he did the turns, then I'm surprised he didn't see the people near his planned touchdown point.

It would only take about 600' AGL to do the base-to-final turn type of approach safely.

In my flight training, the instructors wanted me to name a specific spot I was going to land at whenever we did an simulated emergency descent & landing exercise.
We'd practice over the farms and open fields but also practice in the pattern so that the landings with the engine idling could actually be completed.

I learned to come in just a little high and do a small amount of forward slip on final to "hit my spot".
.

 

I'm not a pilot, so maybe I should keep my nose out of this, but as an attorney, I think you're going a bit far. I do not see a DA bringing charges against the pilot. I see a civil case being brought by the estates of the decedents.

It's a terrible tragedy, and as so many have already pointed out, in hindsight could certainly be avoided. From the pilot's statements, he didn't see them. Had he, he might have made an adjustment. I rather doubt there was intent. That plane was coming down one place or another, and it looked clear to the pilot, but he was wrong. Stuff happens. Unfortunately.

You say that the pedestrians didn't "sign up for" this. True, BUT we all assume some risk just by stepping out of our homes in the morning every day. Some people are killed by blocks of falling ice and fecal matter coming off planes with leaks in their lav tanks. It's got to be one of the oddest ways to go, but it happens. It's not criminal.

Could he have ditched? Sure, and had he observed them on the beach, maybe he would have found a way to put it elsewhere safely on the beach. Or, if not in the drink. But, if he could safely land on the beach, why would be ditch? From what he said, he thought it was all clear. These are decisions made very quickly, as you know. It's easy to second guess, but you seem very quick to throw the guy under the bus from a position upon the moral high ground.

This pilot could have a TERRIBLE safety record. It's possible he should not be behind the controls (which will all come out in the civil trial). If that's the case, then the FAA ought to be criminally prosecuted for not pulling his ticket, right? Or, his instructor criminally prosecuted for having created a lethal weapon, right? Or, his insurance company criminally prosecuted for insuring him, right?

We're mortal. That's a bite in the ass. We can die. We will die. It's very unfortunate this happened, but I simply do not see this rising to manslaughter.

CW

 

Well, flying - like driving is a right.

No one "has" to drive either. Take a bus, or train, or walk.

Why can't you take my acquiescence to your blood lust POV and just STFU?

 

No it's not. It's a privilege. You have to earn it and it can be taken away. You don't have a "right" to drive.

 

I'm not saying there should be criminal charges but at the same time, why wouldn't there be?

My perspective is coming from.... I love flying and these goons are going going to screw it up for the rest of us with their bad decision making.

As for "pulling his ticket", it generally doesn't happen til you screw up. In aviation it only takes about 1 screw up and you're dead. This could be this pilots first screw up.

 

Well, this follows perfectly. Go to jail, but not saying there should be criminal charges. I think they typically call this the 'banana republic' method.

 

Well, actually, you did...

Not every death results in a manslaughter charge. And, not every manslaughter case ends in a conviction. The incidents are viewed and considered by the trier/weigher of fact in light of the situation. Without more, I think you'd be very hard pressed to find a jury that would convict this pilot of a criminal offense. It was a tragic accident. Nothing more.

A prosecutor's office does not have unlimited resources. They have to make decisions about what to prosecute and what not to. There was no mens rea (so, murder and voluntary manslaughter are out), and if there's a passenger, there's a witness to what was happening in the cockpit. Investigators will take statements, and based on those we'll see, but I rather doubt there'll be a criminal case arising. There is always an outside chance, however, because, technically, there's been a death, and but for the actions of the pilot, that death would not have occurred.

From Nolo.com: "Involuntary manslaughter. A killing can be involuntary manslaughter when a person's reckless disregard of a substantial risk results in another's death. Because involuntary manslaughter involves carelessness and not purposeful killing, it is a less serious crime than murder or voluntary manslaughter. The subtleties between the degrees of murder and manslaughter reach their peak with involuntary manslaughter."

So, at least one element (a killing) is met. Is there a "reckless disregard"? Is there a "substantial risk"? Would that risk "result in a death"? These are the elements that have to be proven of the lowest bar of a felony manslaughter charge. (Technically, I suppose the lesser charge of battery could also potentially be included). Do you think all these elements existed? Without knowing more, I don't.

I understand your argument that a couple of rotten apples can ruin the bushel. However, leisure aircraft have been around a while. Deaths to innocent bystanders have happened before, too. There has been little call for banning them, as a result, though. This is no different to me. Maybe the NTSB's investigation will produce recommendations. Maybe not. But, I sincerely doubt this incident will cause private aircraft to be outlawed.

My examples were meant to be somewhat leading, so I wouldn't take them literally, as you have. My point wasn't about whether he was a dangerous pilot. Rather, the point is where you would terminate the liability.

Generally, I think the FAA appears to do a reasonably good job of looking out for problems. A friend, who suffered a head injury in a head-on DUI, had his ticket pulled pre-emptively. That's how serious they take this kind of stuff, but I'm sure many of you know far better than I do about their practices. But, they're human, so they're also capable of making mistakes. But, what do we know of this pilot and his record, anyway? He may be the safest, most conservative pilot you ever met. Bad things can still happen.

And, you're right, the first screw up, could be the last. I would tell you that I wouldn't be writing this today, if someone in my gene pool had retracted his wheels a second slower when taking off out of Watkins Glen. Low light. Electrical or telephone cables at the end of the runway. Lack of familiarity with the airport. You get the scenario.

Anyway, you all, as pilots, have far more seat time and ability to judge whether this guy did or didn't do anything improper than I do. Remember, though, for a criminal conviction, you need a unanimous vote and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. I think you have a tough time making the case.

CW

 

You beat me to it while I was typing.

CW

 

Brilliant minds run in the same gutter.

I was cogitating on criminally negligent homicide. Texas version, other states would be similar:

Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, there was a death, and a direct cause(the plane being piloted). Next we need one of the elements, intentional, knowingly, or recklessly. I think we all know where this is going. Was choosing the beach to land a plane while in distress reckless? This of course presumes that the plane was functional, inspected, and certified according to the FARs, and that the pilot was competent, and up to date on his medical, BFR, and rated in the type of plane for which he was operating. I'm going to give those factors a big 'yes'(we will see of course), which only leaves was his action, while in-extremis considered by the reasonable man standard a reckless act?

I doubt you could get 12 jurists to sign on for that, and I think my defense would be; 'there but for the grace....'.

 

My point is "laws aside"....

1. You could sleep at night killing a family on the beach in exchange for saving yourself?

2. Decisions like this will lead to everyone losing their airplanes. There is no "right to fly" as you mistakenly tried to point out.

There's more to this than going to jail. The guy made a bad decision. I hope you or I never have to make the same decision.

Not everything comes down to "can I get away with it". You still have to live with the consequences.

 

If I didn't see anyone on the beach, I'd probably head there, instead of trying to put a fixed gear plane in the drink. Survival odds or at least severe injury not good for Pilot/pax.

 

Well, I already rolled over and said you might be right, why can't you accept success? Is it making you a bigger person to tear at someone else? I just got done explaining the statute I think would apply, but yet - yet, you still come back? Me thinks I have a stalker.

But - I'm bored, and it's late so I'll play along, even though I don't answer to you, I answer to myself - so get off my back, mom.

1. This is something that psychologists struggle with, and philosophers rationalize all the time. Mans inhumanity to man, self worth, self denial, our place in the grand scheme of life, respoinsbility to family, culture, society, etc. I guess I don't have an answer for you. I have a conscience, smaller than some, but bigger than others. There are people all over the world who live with the fact that they have caused the death of another. some do it with hardly a ripple, some agonize over it so much they end their lives in misery. Not sure where I would rate on that scale, but I'm guessing eventually I would get on with my life, and regret that which I could have potentially avoided. I've got regrets now, but not to the point where I'm a quivering mass of goo.

2. You are mistaken. There is a right to fly, just as there is to drive. It's been well covered in law, with plenty of judicial rulings(Thompkins v Smith, Schectman v Dulles, yes - that Dulles). Just because you require a license or certificate, does not restrict or withdraw the rights to move about the country on conveyance for commerce or pleasure.

2a. So, here's a bonus I like to point out to folks of the 'there oughta be a law' contingent. Guess where they have an absolute perfect, zero General Aviation accident record? Never one accident, in the entire country, in their history since the beginning: North Korea. So, be like the US? Or, shall we follow your creed and be like N Korea. No accidents. Sounds compelling, but there is that one tiny codicil....

Buh bye.

 

This is very similar to the gun rights that are slowly getting squeezed from all Americans. The media and those that are against the rights, freedoms, or privileges, whatever you want to call them, love to capitalize on this kind of story to justify their cause.

We don't know all the facts, so how can any of us make the decision that the pilot should be prosecuted or jailed, you can't just take a story from the media and use that information to convict the suspected perpetrator. This is why in high profile trials, jurors are sequestered, the medias influence is generally not a good one.

What we do know is he didn't do it on purpose, and in my book, that isn't criminal or a justification to lock him up. I'm pretty sure the guilt is plenty enough punishment for the rest of his days, even without the civil suit that will surely take place from the deceased family members.

 

Anyone with a FAR/AIM handy care to chime in?

 

I'm not "coming back at you". I'm discussing the topic. That's what forums are for. I even added a new angle taking the laws out of the equation. I don't know why you're begin so defensive.

 

1. There is a difference in knowing that it was an accident v. making an intentional trade-off. You are suggesting that this pilot made a conscious decision to hit the pedestrians in order to save his own life. I just don't see that here. In fact, the statements made indicate no such thing. The pilot will certainly have to struggle with the consequences of his decisions, but if he didn't see anyone, as he claims, he would never have had to make the trade-off decision that you suggest he did. I think it's a lot easier for someone (and their conscience) to move past deaths due to an unintentional accident than it is to wrestle with the results of a trade-off decision. However, we rationalize lots of bad events. We have to in order to move beyond them.

2. I don't think this will result in anything significant. It's an unfortunate outcome in an imperfect, physical world. I expect there will be a civil case, but, honestly, because of two deaths of innocent bystanders (even when one is a minor), the ENTIRE industry is going to be outlawed? I simply do not see that as within the realm of the the reasonable or possible. There would have to be something more than that. Maybe new rules & regulations, policies, practices or training will come of this. Or, maybe not. But, I simply do not see the complete shut-down of the private aircraft industry over this. As I said, I don't even see criminality.

CW

 

The plane is on the crowded beach with 2 people dead and there's a whole sea of water right next to it. What more do you need to know?

This is not the first time someone has ditched on a crowded beach and killed people. People ditch on beaches all the time. It's a dumb move and that's my point. 88% of water landings are survivable. This is not a one off event. It's real problem.

Don't you think about if it were your wife and child who was killed? The pilot had a choice. There is no "set of circumstances".

Under what circumstances do you feel it was OK for the pilot to land on the beach and kill folks when there is a million square miles of ocean right next to the beach?

 

Two people makes for a "crowded beach"? Two people that the pilot claims not to have seen? He did not mow down a crowd. He did not even intentionally, if you believe his statements, collide with the two pedestrians. He thought he had a clear and relatively safe place to set it down. It turned out that he was wrong on it being totally clear and safe to attempt a landing, but that's 20/20 hindsight (as has been pointed out by several others already). With knowledge of different facts, maybe this pilot would have made another decision. With different facts (for example, let's assume the pedestrians had seen the plane coming at them and were able to avoid it), there wouldn't even be injuries. You're just looking at this from the benefit of perfect information after-the-fact. You cannot do that. You have to put yourself into the shoes of the pilot at the time of the incident to judge him.

I have no basis (other than logic) to argue that ditching on a deserted, open beach is not a bad decision. You are saying that ANY beach landing is a "dumb move". However, how many beach landings end without injury? I'd bet a good percentage. Regardless, these are, by and large, still emergencies. You are correct that it's not the first time a plane has had to make an emergency landing on a beach, but, for the pilot involved, this may well be the first incident. And, these decisions are made in the heat of the moment. You are asking for the perfect result. With perfect knowledge. With perfect decision-making. Each and every time. It just won't happen.

You can, to some extent, make this a rules-based decision. You can mandate that a plane in trouble and dead-sticking must ditch in water, when possible. Okay. Fine by me. But, as suggested, what happens when some swimmer, surfer or other innocent is killed as a result? Yes, water landings are survivable. But, beach landings may have a better likelihood of survival for the occupants. Just how much of this do you want to make mandatory and rules-based, as opposed to leaving within the discretion of the PIC?

You say it's a "real problem", yet the FAA has not enacted any rule requiring ditching as opposed to a beach landing. Why not? If the FAA agreed with you, I can believe they'd propose a rule, solicit feedback, deliberate and, possibly, enact something. As yet, they have not, AFAIK. Will this event cause the FAA to take another look at it? Possibly. But, more likely, I doubt anything will come of it.

You're still arguing as if he intentionally made the decision to sacrifice the two pedestrians to save his and his pax' lives. I just don't agree with that, based on what I've seen so far.

You ask what if it were my wife and child. I'd be distraught. I'd bury them. I'd be asking lots of questions. Maybe the same ones you're asking. Based on any answers I received, I'd consider whether a civil suit is appropriate. I'd want to hear from the pilot (who would surely be told not to talk to me). So, maybe the only way that could happen is in a court room or a deposition. But, I also have to accept, at some level, that this was not intentional. That accidents happen, deaths result and we have to move on. This is life. It's fragile and mortal.

CW

 

The plane is on the beach=Intentional. The plane didn't get there by itself. The pilot had choices. He could have ditched in the ocean. Perhaps you need to re-read the article. There's footage of the plane crashing. Look how many people are there. This is Sarasota Florida. Not a deserted beach.
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2014/07/27/plane-crash-caspersen-beach-sarasota/13241963/

The beach had a lot more than 2 people on it if you look at the photos.

I'm not saying "there should be a law". Why do you keep saying that over and over? I'm saying "we need to police ourselves and our own". We shouldn't be taught (I was) that landing on a beach is OK. It's not OK.

Could you live with yourself being alive at the cost of killing 2 others when you had a choice to ditch in the ocean or the beach? It's a reasonable question.

 

First, I think you're confusing intent. Of course, the pilot intended to make an emergency landing on the beach. However, the pilot did not intend to injure any pedestrians. His statement was to the contrary. It was that he didn't see them. Thus, he could not have had the requisite intent.

Yes, I looked at the still photos (and I'll go back to the original story and look there for video, too). I did not see any that were leading up to the moment of impact. I did not see any that showed how busy that particular beach was at the time of the incident. I see a couple after the incident with a crowd congregating, but what's unusual about that? There's a plane on a beach, which is an unusual place to see one. Unless it's time stamped, though, we actually don't even know how long after the incident the photo was taken. Thus, those photos show nothing, IMO, that's incriminating. It's a narrow strip for sure, though. But, I have no idea how many people were on the beach at the time, and neither do you, based on those photos.

Okay, you don't want a law. That's fine, too. But, what do you want, then? IMO, a pilot has wide latitude and, therefore, a great responsibility. So, you're saying leave it in their hands? But, then you're saying don't land on beaches? That's inconsistent and incongruous. Either they have discretion to decide what's safest under the circumstances or the decision is made for them by someone sitting in committee thousands of miles away and days, weeks, months or years away in time. Landing on a beach could be perfectly safe and result in no injuries, though. It could be the best alternative.

You're arguing that instructors should teach a different philosophy: ditch in water, when possible and avoid land altogether, unless you can safely reach a proper landing strip? Okay, again, I have no basis to argue they shouldn't. Although, maybe loss to insurers plays a role here? After all a ditched-in-water plane (even fresh water), is probably a total write-off. Whereas the plane in the photos looks like it could be repaired to me. But, of course, in this instance, it's possible that the insurer will have to pay out to the decedent's estates. Without that, they would just be paying to repair the plane (as opposed to scrapping it).

The FAA certifies flight schools, too. Don't they review and set policy for what's taught? And, if they disagreed with what was being taught, wouldn't they recommend or demand a revision to the curriculum? In other words, it comes back to my suggestion that if the FAA felt there was a problem, it could be addressed (even if it's at the flight training level).

Given what we know about this incident so far, I believe I could live with myself.

CW

 

I am glad to know we have people here that are perfect and always make the correct decision.


One person left out of the entire conversation, the passenger of the airplane. We have to assume without evidence to the contrary that the pilot felt landing on the beach held no or little risk to bystanders but we also know he did have a responsibility for the safety of his passenger, a person he knew without doubt was at risk in an emergency. A beach landing was the safest option for him. We have no knowledge of his physical condition or ability to swim.


Unlike some, I don't know everything and I am pretty confident I am not perfect so I think I'll wait for all the information to come out before participating in the crucifixion.

 

To everyone in this thread...... The thread title is "what would you do"? I didn't start the thread. I'm trying to explain what "I think" one should do.

If you don't want to discuss it then why be on a forum in the first place? That's the whole point isn't it?

Don't want to be discussed on a forum? Don't do things that will get you on the news. I feel no reason to hold back my opinion. If I kill myself on my flight to Chicago today you are all free to discuss and speculate til the cows come home. I promise I won't be offended. I do not have to fly. I could drive. I could go commercial. I am fully aware of the risks I take to fly my own airplane and do not feel this relegates me to a position of "not being talked about". I didn't get cancer. This is not "accidental". I am "fueling the jet" on purpose and flying it into the air. Wish me luck.

 

I don't buy the argument that he could not see people on the beach, or in the water near the shore, due to the emergency at hand. If he could not see them because he could not see them that is one thing, but the fact that the airplane was descending without power is not the excuse. He wasn't in a Pitts. In a Piper you can see your touchdown point through the entire landing, except for possibly the final flare.

I think the initial instinct in this situation is to find something that resembles a runway, e.g. straight and smooth. The beach is an obvious choice. However once you get too low the options to change your final approach diminish quickly. He was likely lined up on the beach for a 'considerable' time, i.e. he did not fly a curved approach. Assuming the pictures of the guy playing in the water were from that day, there were a lot of people on the beach. This means the pilot over flew a number of people while on final approach. Maybe he thought he saw a small deserted section and was aiming for that but undershot/overshot. The facts (altitude, direction, wind, etc) as they come out will be interesting, including testimony from the passenger.

Just a sad story for the family at the beach. I agree with the comments about intent, or lack of, but the pilot will end up paying for the rest of his life. How to handle emergencies properly can be reinforced by practice, including continuously thinking about them. When flying how many of us pilots continuously think about 'where would I land if the engine quit right now'? Hence the title of the thread.

 

Wow, Jason, you gots some snap-judgment blood lust there. The guy said he avoided a crowded beach and picked one that he thought was empty. Taken at face value, that puts this in "mistake" category to me. At the end of the day, as PIC he is responsible for failing to make a safe landing, emergency or no, but it sounds like he tried.

As for putting the aircraft in the water instead, have you ever ditched? I have not but I want to say the statistics are not good for outcome. One article I found states that from 1993 to 1998 alone, 82 light aircraft ditchings occurred in the United States. Of the 165 pilots and passengers involved, 59 perished.

So PIC is thinking beach looks clear, ditching might kill my pax (and me) and picks the beach.

He did not appear to select his life over that of the poor guy and his daughter.

A tragic accident and you sure have some hubris to be so incredibly judgmental IMO.