If the cause of the crash was determined to be a worn part that was not replaced, the Captain could not have been charged with negligence or manslaughter for the deaths. It was not the way the plane landed, but the fact that the elevator locked up that caused the hard landing. It wasn't the captains fault.
I don't get it. The ending just seems illogical to me.
He flew the plane drunk and high on cocaine. That was the issue in the end.
shareHe flew the plane drunk and high on cocaine. That was the issue in the end.
I don't see what's there to understand - a law is a law and if we're starting to make exceptions on the individual basis, there's no point in having that law in the first place. And what kind of a message would clearing Mr Whip send to other pilots, anyway - go right ahead and climb onto the flight deck as long as you don't feel impaired (and mostly, the ones intoxicated do 'not' think they're in an inadequate state), so we can all gamble on the ebbs and flows of the pilots' states of intoxication? There is no question that as a rule, psychoactive substances do affect judgement and reaction - hell, Whip himself exercised rather poor judgement with his reckless manouvering (for which he didn't even bother to ask the ATC permission) and overspeeding during the initial climbout. Sure, he lucked out during emergency, relying on experience and instinct, but I certainly cannot see a vodka swilling airman operating the autopilot or working the communications without problem over the course of the flight. Besides, one shouldn't forget that Whip was in fact a repeat offender.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
I don't see what's there to understand - a law is a law and if we're starting to make exceptions on the individual basis, there's no point in having that law in the first place.
Being intoxicated equals being impaired so there's no point in splitting hairs here. Sure, some alcoholics are comparatively functional when under the influence, but what should be done then - run simulator tests for drunk aviators before boarding the aircraft to determine which ones are more or less able to handle the job? In any case, Mr Whip thoroughly deserved all these years in jail for he was one outrageously irresponsible as-hole.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
Being intoxicated equals being impaired
Exactly what I thought. The malfunctioning mechanics would've rendered the sobriety or otherwise of the captain irrelevant, and there's even an argument that being off his tits on booze and coke relieved him of the fear that robs someone of calm, logical thought it extreme situations like that.
So what, he was pissed. He saved the majority of people on that crappy plane. The mawkish self-revelation at the end of the film was forced and tacky, not to mention completely unnecessary.
I agree that the ending was tacky. I think that in real life, he would have gotten probation for a first offense, or at least very little jail time. The son would've been more ashamed of him, if anything. Sure the guy was a dick, but he did save those people. I think that, in real life, at least some of those passenger would've shown up in court to ask for a dismissal, or at least a much lighter sentence. the end of th movie was just to please teetotalers or something.
Also, the guy screwed the stewardesses, got high, and drank all the time because his life kind of sucked. His wife divorced him, his kid wanted nothing to do with him, his job might have been getting boring after twenty years of flying the same routes. His best friend was his dealer.
Agreed also, its 2 things for me really.
That he managed to make it to that hearing appearing sober after snorting more coke, makes no sense, but whatever.
Also that after he admitted what he did, he ended up been in jail for manslaughter. More realistically would either just be sacked, or have a very short jail sentence or even community service. The film was ok till the end.
"More realistically would either just be sacked or have a very short jail sentence or even community service".
That would not be "more realistic" at all - stuff like this has happened in real life and in one case that immediately comes to mind, both pilots got at least 5 years in prison (I think the Captain may even have gotten something closer to 10). And in that case, the plane never even left the airport. Similarly, it was enough for Whip to turn up drunk & stoned on the flight deck to have his ass arrested; whatever happened afterwards, was completely irrelevant to that initial offence.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Is this second paragraph like some kind of ill-advised pitch to get the good old Captain to walk scot free? The irresponsible as-hole who had betrayed his clients who'd trusted him with their lives time and time again? If he had psychological/addiction problems, there's counselling and support groups set up by the airlines for that. Bored with his job? F-cking quit. What Whip did, was nothing short of outrageous. And what idiot of a passenger would ask for a dismissal, knowing all that?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
^^^This. The cause of the crash becomes irrelevant. His flying intoxicated was automatically illegal.
Now with the mechanical failure factored in, he probably got a reduced sentence. Notice it was 5-6 years, and not the much stiffer penalty that goes with 6 counts of manslaughter.
101 counts of reckless endangerment, plus the near mandatory jail time for flying a commercial aircraft while under the influence.
From a civil lawsuit perspective, liability probably went one-third each to the airline, whoever maintained the aircraft, and the manufacturer.
[deleted]
I agree...I can only see this happening if there was a mandatory or minimum sentencing situation...sure if there had been an accident which was furry or contentious in it's causes, then all the weight has to fall on him...
in this case, with an indisputable catastrophic mechanical fault (real planes have been brought down with no survivors from jack-stay seizure, there was either an Alaskan or SW Airlines disaster some years ago down to that exact cause, the plane crashed in the sea west of LA)...
I just cannot see a lengthy custodial sentence such as 5 years , especially not when the mere loss of his license is a heavy penalty for any airline pilot.
He did not kill the people and crash the plane (in spite of his inebriation being a felony) in fact, with freakish skill ,
he saved almost all on board when the entire passenger list should have been a dead loss wipe-out.
Disgression kicks in..even adding to his list of charges that he had just perjured himself during the early part of the hearing, while later recanting that false testimony.
I've worked as a flight attendant for a major commercial airline and as a corporate F/A (private jets). All crew members are essentially federal employees as one cannot work flights with FAA certification which needs re certified regularly. As such, no crew member can drink alcohol 24 hours before a flight (12 for flight attendants) and obviously no illegal drugs. Random drug tests are utilized to remind us that you can get busted at any time should you disregard the rules. Unions (APA and AFA) will help file a grievance if first transgression but bottom line is its against federal regulations. Period. And just like a flight attendant can be charged with manslaughter for serving underage passengers who then might have a fatal car wreck on their way home you can imagine what a pilot would be charged with for any fatalities resulting from a crash while intoxicated.
shareThe captain being blamed would have been political. Many sea captains have been court marshaled for tragedies not their fault. The captain of the Lusitania was for being hit by a German torpedo. He was pardoned after he died.
But the airline captain should be fired because of his drinking. This is a big no no and everyone knows it
I know, I know! I could not understand that point either?
share