An Australian pilot has been convicted of criminal charges in a fatal crash after his forced landing attempt went wrong. According to the BBC, Leslie Woodall was flying a Cessna 172N with three passengers over the Great Barrier Reef in 2017 when the engine quit. He told court he tried to turn the plane around to a landing spot on a beach behind them rather than ditch because the water was deep and infested with bull sharks. The plane stalled and cartwheeled, killing a 29-year-old British woman and injuring a 21-year-old Irish woman and 13-year-old boy. Woodall was also seriously hurt.
Seems a little harsh to me. Bull sharks or beach?? I’ll take the beach thanks. While the airmanship wasn’t good, I don’t think a criminal court should be deciding that. Civil courts will deal with his decision through litigation.
Unfortunately, one life was lost. The article doesn’t say when the turn happened, and when the stall warning sounded. Details matter if you’re putting someone’s airmanship on trial. Spectators get killed watching rally races, but the drivers don’t get prosecuted for poor steering. Bottom line is that this pilot may be guilty of cruelty to sharks by witholding food.
I think we are looking at the same types of criminal convictions coming to the US in the near future. Accidents will be termed negligence and manslaughter and who’s to say how far removed from the case the net will fall? Will CFIs be culpable for failure to teach ( or not document teaching) certain emergency procedures? Will DPEs have to begin to GoPro every checkride in preparation for future legal defense?
Don’t be surprised.
Criminal charges?
CRIMINAL charges for a stall/spin accident?
Stall/spin accidents now illegal in Australia.
I guess they will change all placard from “spins prohibited” to now say “Spins Prohibited under Penalty of Law”?
What did not help the pilot was his own statement…
“I thought I was over a section of the river that I knew well,” he said. “But as it turns out, I was a mile and a half upriver from that point—and I was following a different branch. I’d never intentionally fly over any section of river that I didn’t already know.”
It was a contradictory statement “I thought I was”…“and I was following a different branch”…"that I didn’t already know.” Most basic thought, flying down a river should not be a light decision even if you do know the river. In vehicle manslaughter the law takes into account:
Driving recklessly
Driving carelessly
Driving illegally
And if you substitute Driving with flying (or operating an aircraft) then this court decision seems reasoned.
There is a bit to unpack from this article and it is light in details, but …
His engine quit. Okay that’s not good, but how high was he when it happened.
He tried to “turn around” to land on a beach because the water ahead was “deep” an had sharks.
“the plane dipping the left wing before rapidly descending and striking the sand” So he was maybe not so far out from the beach when this happened which negates the “deep” part.
Mayhap he was flying very low just off the beach when the engine quit, very low since if he had altitude he could have done a gentle turn back instead of what may seem like a tight turn, at low altitude, inducing a stall/spin causing the accident.
hmmmm…As noted in a sub post there are laws for vehicular manslaugher relating to careless or reckless operation. Sure, where is the line drawn, but at some point maybe we should consider that line?
Some things to consider
1 - Knowing the waters to be “infested” with sharks should a pilot fly so low over the water as to not make a safe turn back to land in case of engine errors.
2 - If flying over water, should a life raft be carried and briefed.
I’m not one to say “throw the book at em”, but I also feel that this notion that pilots get a free pass on negligence is not right as well. I read a few stories of student pilots flying with a non Instructor, crashing and killing the passenger (and themselves). Is that no less a criminal act then a drunk driver killing a passenger. It is a question of intent, decision making, and respect for the rules meant to keep people safe.
If Joe Bob wants to fly low over sharks or low over a river by him (or her self) then at worst they take themselves out, but piloting with passengers demands a higher degree of awareness that as I read and watch you tube videos, seems to be in the decline. Maybe flying inside the envelope is boring, but it keeps people alive.
You are assuming an lot here Hoss. Nowhere did I read he was low over the water.
We don’t know the sand dunes that may have been behind the beach limiting available area.
He could very well have been at a safe altitude and over deep water, when the engine quit.
Even if you have a life raft you have to get it and yourself out of a sinking plane, hoping the sharks don’t get you while you get in the raft!
I’m surprised how many folks are against this ruling. IF you fly for hire you better know you bird and what it can and can’t do. The bottom line HE and HE alone was responsible for maintaining his aircraft as Airworthy. He failed a woman died and now he suffers the courts wrath.
Stall in turn to avoid something is a common cause of accidents.
Trying to turn around in a blind canyon has been a frequent cause in B.C., I don’t have recent statistics but there were educational efforts including a presentation on mountain flying at the COPA convention in Red Deer AB circa early in this century.
(One technique to avoid blind canyons in one type of topography is to cross a ridge at an angle, which gives a better look and a bit more time to turn away.)