E Coli outbreak in Germany - crime and punishment

[Pete]

I don't understand your argument.

The NTSB most assuredly trys to figure out who or what is to blame for every crash.

Indeed I can't recall a recent NTSB report that didn't include the "Probable Cause", which names names and assigns blame.

Egypt Air - flight 990

Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the EgyptAir flight 990 accident is the airplane's departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2002/aab0201.htm



American Airlines - Flight 587


The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2004/AAR0404.htm

Arthur

There is a difference between determining the cause and placing personal blame. In other words, saying that certain pilot actions are to blame is not the same as saying the pilot is to blame.

The first case is a unusual (a suicide?), and yet the report carefully avoids going any further than "The Safety Board considered possible reasons for the relief first officer's actions; however, the Board did not reach a conclusion regarding the intent of or motivation for his actions."

The second case also does not lay blame on the pilot for his actions, rather it indicates that his actions in that circumstance were reasonably attributable to the pilot's training.

 

[adoucette]

There is a difference between determining the cause and placing personal blame. In other words, saying that certain pilot actions are to blame is not the same as saying the pilot is to blame.

The first case is a unusual (a suicide?), and yet the report carefully avoids going any further than "The Safety Board considered possible reasons for the relief first officer's actions; however, the Board did not reach a conclusion regarding the intent of or motivation for his actions."

The second case also does not lay blame on the pilot for his actions, rather it indicates that his actions in that circumstance were reasonably attributable to the pilot's training.

Are you kidding?

Of course they placed personal blame.

They could hardly be more specific as to the cause:

the airplane's departure from normal cruise flight and subsequent impact with the Atlantic Ocean as a result of the relief first officer's flight control inputs

.

Translation: "The first officer deliberately crashed the plane".

How is that NOT assigning blame?

Same with the second flight:

the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs

Translation: "The pilot, attempting to deal with minor wake turbulence got into a feedback loop of Pilot induced oscillations and pushed the rudder first one way to the stop and then immediately back the other way to the stop and thus far exceeded the design limits of the vertical stablizer causing it to break off which made the plane uncontrollable resulting in the crash".

They were quite clear: the Co-Pilot's excessive use of the rudder caused the crash.

How is that not assigning blame?

The POINT is that every NTSB investigation tries to find what or who is to blame for a crash.

When they determine it is Pilot Error (which it frequently is) they indeed DO say so.

When they determine it is the design of the aircraft, they do indeed point to the design error.

They may go further and say that training, or aircraft design or any host of things also contribute to the cause, but indeed they often blame specific persons and/or actions for accidents.

What I think Asguard is confusing it with is a policy by the FAA for self reporting of incidents including violations of regulations that can be made without penalty.

But the NTSB is NOT the FAA and they always want to figure out the specifics of every accident and if they believe someone or something is to blame they will most definately put that in their findings.

Arthur

 

[Bells]

Same repercussions?

Same application of the law, yes.

No, people do not generally think that way.

Yes they do.

You seem to have this belief that everyone is decent and cares about others. Humans are selfish animals who only care about how things affect them.

Most people would consider 35 deaths serious repercussions, don't you think?

To you and I, yes. Do you assume the same for everyone else?

I have seen with my own eyes, elderly people lie through their teeth that they did not swerve onto the wrong side of the road and kill another motorist, and have seen them demand psych evaluations for those who witnessed the accident and their swerving who were forced to testify against them because they lied so much. I have seen people who poisoned others, not caring who got sick or died along the way.

35 deaths (36 now apparently) and over 100 requiring kidney transplants and dialysis (for life).. you don't think causing such pain and torment and grief is worthy of legal repercussions? It is easy to say that when you are on the outside looking in. Very easy. It is very easy and naive to say that people learn from killing others and won't do it again.

If you "made a booboo" that killed 35 people, would you be feeling happy about it? Would you chuckle to yourself as you reported your "booboo" to the investigation panel because you got away with it without "repercussions"?

Some people do everything they can to get away with it. That is what you are not getting.

I appreciate why you may think or believe that people will automatically feel guilt or act selflessly, but not everyone does. History has proven that to us repeatedly.

 

[adoucette]

35 deaths (36 now apparently) and over 100 requiring kidney transplants and dialysis (for life).. you don't think causing such pain and torment and grief is worthy of legal repercussions?

Only if there is a clear case of either intent or negligence.

I don't think with a bacteria as common as E. coli that it is likely that either can be legally proven though.

Arthur

 

[Pete]

Are you kidding?

Of course they placed personal blame.

They could hardly be more specific as to the cause:

.

Translation: "The first officer deliberately crashed the plane".

The report says that the crash was the result of the first officer's actions.
Your translation says that crash was the first officer's intent.

Can you see that it's not the same thing?

Translation: "The pilot, attempting to deal with minor wake turbulence got into a feedback loop of Pilot induced oscillations and pushed the rudder first one way to the stop and then immediately back the other way to the stop and thus far exceeded the design limits of the vertical stablizer causing it to break off which made the plane uncontrollable resulting in the crash".

They were quite clear: the Co-Pilot's excessive use of the rudder caused the crash.

How is that not assigning blame?

It's assigning blame to the co-pilot's actions.

If the pilot performed those actions in the reasonable expectation that they were they correct actions in that situation, is he to blame?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The report doesn't say.

The POINT is that every NTSB investigation tries to find what or who is to blame for a crash.

When they determine it is Pilot Error (which it frequently is) they indeed DO say so.

When they determine it is the design of the aircraft, they do indeed point to the design error.

They may go further and say that training, or aircraft design or any host of things also contribute to the cause, but indeed they often blame specific persons and/or actions for accidents.

What I think Asguard is confusing it with is a policy by the FAA for self reporting of incidents including violations of regulations that can be made without penalty.

But the NTSB is NOT the FAA and they always want to figure out the specifics of every accident and if they believe someone or something is to blame they will most definately put that in their findings.

If a pilot survives an accident, does the NTSB make punitive recommendations?

 

[adoucette]

The report says that the crash was the result of the first officer's actions.
Your translation says that crash was the first officer's intent.

Can you see that it's not the same thing?

In this case it was the same thing.
He deliberately crashed the plane.
What the NTSB didn't comment on was what motive he may have had for deliberately crashing the plane.

It's assigning blame to the co-pilot's actions.

If the pilot performed those actions in the reasonable expectation that they were they correct actions in that situation, is he to blame?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The report doesn't say.

Yes the report DOES say.
It says he is to blame because his CONTROL INPUTS caused the friggin tail of the plane to break off. Doesn't matter if he thought his actions were correct or they were influence by the training that he received, his actions were improper and in doing FULL MOTION Rudder inputs, first to one side and then immediately reversing them to the other side, he exceeded the conditions that the plane was designed for and that the FAA certificated it's design for.

Which is why the tail fell off.

Don't think so?

Well let's put it this way, the NTSB did not recommend changes to the Tail Mounting structure of the A-300s, so they are all flying around just like the one that he broke by over-contolling the rudder.

In fact, had he just quit pumping the rudder pedals and put his feet on the floor the plane would have straightened out on it's own and a whole lot of people would still be alive today.

Mostly intact tail as recovered from the bay.

Tail section of jet showing mounting lugs.

Tail showing broken attachment locations that mated with the lugs.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/aa587/tailcomp.htm

If a pilot survives an accident, does the NTSB make punitive recommendations?

That is the FAA's responsibility.
And YES, the FAA does take punitive actions based on NTSB reports up to and including loss of license.

Arthur

 

[Pete]

Same application of the law, yes.

Not the same thing, Bells.

Yes they do.

You seem to have this belief that everyone is decent and cares about others. Humans are selfish animals who only care about how things affect them.

Most people care about others.

To you and I, yes. Do you assume the same for everyone else?

I assume the same for almost all people.
Do you think that most people would really just shrug off causing 35 deaths?

I have seen with my own eyes, elderly people lie through their teeth that they did not swerve onto the wrong side of the road and kill another motorist, and have seen them demand psych evaluations for those who witnessed the accident and their swerving who were forced to testify against them because they lied so much. I have seen people who poisoned others, not caring who got sick or died along the way.

Yes, such people exist. No not all people are like that. Not even most.

35 deaths (36 now apparently) and over 100 requiring kidney transplants and dialysis (for life).. you don't think causing such pain and torment and grief is worthy of legal repercussions?

Perhaps. But it's not the most important outcome. More important is doing what can be done to stop it happening again

It is easy to say that when you are on the outside looking in. Very easy. It is very easy and naive to say that people learn from killing others and won't do it again.

Some people do everything they can to get away with it. That is what you are not getting.

I appreciate why you may think or believe that people will automatically feel guilt or act selflessly, but not everyone does. History has proven that to us repeatedly.

I think you're projecting someone else's argument on to me. I do think that you are overstating the spectre of unpunished evildoers, but that's peripheral to my main point.

My argument is that in your zeal to find someone to punish, you risk missing the opportunity to find and correct all the causes involved.

 

[adoucette]

It's assigning blame to the co-pilot's actions.

If the pilot performed those actions in the reasonable expectation that they were they correct actions in that situation, is he to blame?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The report doesn't say.

Just to be clear.

A lot more people died as a result of this crash then from the bean sprouts in Germany.

And unlike the E. coli outbreak we know for certain the person who was directly responsible for the crash and the subsequent deaths.

So, let's presume that the pilot survived the crash (no one actually survived, 260 were killed on the plane and 5 people on the ground were killed as well)

So if I get it right, according to the argument that Bells, Read Only and Kira have been putting forward the Pilot should, after he recovers from his injuries, be tried for all these deaths because they were due to his negligent operation of the aircraft.

As Bells said:

you don't think causing such pain and torment and grief is worthy of legal repercussions?

As Read Only said:

If there are NO repercussions there will NOTHING gained from the investigation.

As Kira said:

My final stance is fixed: ... I wouldn't trust to live in a society where gross negligence causing mass manslaughter happened and no one ever be held responsible. Simply because I can't possibly feel safe. For all I know, I or my family could be the next victims.

If not, please explain how the copilots negligence is somehow different?

Arthur

 

[Bells]

Only if there is a clear case of either intent or negligence.

Which is what I said and have been saying through this thread.

I don't think with a bacteria as common as E. coli that it is likely that either can be legally proven though.

That is why I said "if" it can be proven...

 

[Bells]

Not the same thing, Bells.

Endangering the public..

Most people care about others.

Really..

Only when it serves themselves.

I assume the same for almost all people.
Do you think that most people would really just shrug off causing 35 deaths?

We shrugged off hundreds of thousands of deaths over the years and refused to actually do something to stop actual killings..

People do not care. It is naive to assume that if someone is directly responsible for this, that they may actually care. If they did care (and this is based on if someone is directly responsible), they would have spoken up by now and/or ensured that the products were pulled off the shelves. Not remained silent.

Yes, such people exist. No not all people are like that. Not even most.

Look at drink driving rates and people who speed or drive dangerously.

Look at the number of people who sell drugs. Look at the number of organisations and people who drive defective vehicles or machinery. Then get back to me.

Perhaps. But it's not the most important outcome. More important is doing what can be done to stop it happening again

And I can assure you, if someone is directly responsible and you give them a cookie and say 'there there, it's all fine', it will happen again and again because people will know they can get away with it. People won't care because they will know there will be no legal ramifications.

I think you're projecting someone else's argument on to me. I do think that you are overstating the spectre of unpunished evildoers, but that's peripheral to my main point.

My argument is that in your zeal to find someone to punish, you risk missing the opportunity to find and correct all the causes involved.

And you have completely misread and misrepresented my argument. I have been very consistent in saying that if someone is responsible and that it is more than likely that we will never know what caused it or how it got into and onto the sprouts.

 

[Asguard]

Read your an idiot, its your mind which is made up inspite of every bit of evidence to the contary. The NTSB and other aviation investors look for WHY a crash happened so it doesn't happen again. Not who can we throw in jail.

Bells if your really so interested in throwing people in jail for bacterial infections why don't you start with the hundreds who die in hospitals because of MRSA and VRE infections. We know exactly where it comes from, its in every hospital and probably present in every nurse, doctor ect yet we can't control it. Its just not possible to eradicate

 

[Bells]

Read your an idiot, its your mind which is made up inspite of every bit of evidence to the contary. The NTSB and other aviation investors look for WHY a crash happened so it doesn't happen again. Not who can we throw in jail.

Bells if your really so interested in throwing people in jail for bacterial infections why don't you start with the hundreds who die in hospitals because of MRSA and VRE infections. We know exactly where it comes from, its in every hospital and probably present in every nurse, doctor ect yet we can't control it. Its just not possible to eradicate

And you sir, are well out of line.

You have completely and repeatedly misrepresented what I have said to the point where you even asked me what stopped me from raping children or killing children.

I have stated clearly, clear enough that even you should comprehend it, that if the spread is proven to have been caused by the action of a person(s), then yes, they should face legal sanctions.

As for the NTSB.. Dear God, can this be dragged to more different directions?

The NTSB investigates and puts in recommendations. But their role also encompasses passing their reports and any indication of criminal actions onto legal authorities to pursue.

In addition to the Go Team, the NTSB also designates other organizations or corporations as parties to the investigations. Cases that involve suspected criminal activity may require law enforcement agencies to become involved.

(Source)
​

So yes, they can recommend or designate the FBI (as one example) to become involved and criminal prosecutions can and at times do result from those recommendations and investigations.

9/11 is a prime example, with recommendations for locks on doors and charges handed out. And I can assure you, if Mr Sanchez (as another example) had survived the train crash he caused because he was texting, resulting in the deaths of 25 people and injury to 100, he would have been charged.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Guys,

New clues found in tracing the origin of the deadly E coli strain and an appeal for the sharing of additional data

 

[Read-Only]

Read your an idiot, its your mind which is made up inspite of every bit of evidence to the contary. The NTSB and other aviation investors look for WHY a crash happened so it doesn't happen again. Not who can we throw in jail.

Bells if your really so interested in throwing people in jail for bacterial infections why don't you start with the hundreds who die in hospitals because of MRSA and VRE infections. We know exactly where it comes from, its in every hospital and probably present in every nurse, doctor ect yet we can't control it. Its just not possible to eradicate

Well, well, he who thinks there are no criminals, just people who need "treatment!" Are you not even bright enough to know that outright calling me an idiot would get you reported? Well, it did.

And back to the subject: Here you go again, talking about things you know almost nothing about. Certainly the NSTB looks for WHY something happened BUT they also look for who's fault it. Sometimes the "who" is a pilot, sometimes it falls on engineers, sometimes it falls on an airline for not having followed an edict to make some modification or change in equipment and sometimes on mechanic crews - particular those hired cheaply in other countries.

So, just as I've told others here at times, you need to back to your crayons and sandbox and toys and leave serious things to the adults here who have the knowledge and ability to find out HOW things really work in this world. :shrug:

 

[Pete]

So if I get it right, according to the argument that Bells, Read Only and Kira have been putting forward the Pilot should, after he recovers from his injuries, be tried for all these deaths because they were due to his negligent operation of the aircraft.

According to Bells, Read-Only, and Kira, he should be "made to pay" for all those deaths, rather than just stand trial.
But either way, it's a post-investigation issue.
I agree that the pilot in question should stand trial, but the primary investigation is not and should not be a trial. It's looking for facts, not someone to blame.

 

[Pete]

Read-Only and Asguard,
I don't know what your history with each other is, but you're both degrading this thread.
Please, keep it civil.

 

[adoucette]

I agree that the pilot in question should stand trial,

Really?
Since I can't recall a single case where a pilot has been on trial for the deaths of his passengers no matter what kind of errors s/he may of made trying to fly the plane. Indeed, I don't think it will (or should) ever occur.

but the primary investigation is not and should not be a trial. It's looking for facts, not someone to blame.

Well that's kind of ducking the issue since AFAIK there never have been trials for pilots causing crashes because of poor piloting, but most crashes are because of pilot error and there is typically only two pilots on any given flight, so realisticlly most crash investigations do focus on the pilots and do end up finding someone to blame.

Watch this about the final minutes of Eastern 401 and tell me who you would make stand trial and why since it was clearly pilot error that caused the crash?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICqPGkto3Yo

Arthur

 

[Pete]

Endangering the public..

No... I meant that "repercussions" are not the same as "application of the law".

Really..
Only when it serves themselves.

It's really sad that you make that generalisation about all people. Do you treat your kids as if they think that way?

We shrugged off hundreds of thousands of deaths over the years and refused to actually do something to stop actual killings..

Not at all the same thing.

People do not care. It is naive to assume that if someone is directly responsible for this, that they may actually care. If they did care (and this is based on if someone is directly responsible), they would have spoken up by now and/or ensured that the products were pulled off the shelves. Not remained silent.

Fear of punishment is a powerful silencer, Bells. And once again, you're assuming that some specific culpable action is directly responsible for this outbreak.

Most people do care.

Look at drink driving rates and people who speed or drive dangerously.

Look at the number of people who sell drugs. Look at the number of organisations and people who drive defective vehicles or machinery. Then get back to me.

What do you expect we will find?
How will we use that data to test our hypotheses?
Of all people who i) sometimes drink alcohol, ii) sometimes drive, and iii) believe that driving under the influence of alcohol is dangerous to others, what proportion do you think do drive under the influence?

If "people don't care", then that should be a large proportion (how large? >90%? >50%?)

If "people do care", then that should be a small proportion (how small? <10%? <50%?)

Likewise for people who sell drugs. What proportion of people sell dangerous drugs? Most? Few?

What proportion of people/organisations do you think knowingly drive defective vehicles or machinery while believing there is a significant danger?

And I can assure you, if someone is directly responsible and you give them a cookie and say 'there there, it's all fine', it will happen again and again because people will know they can get away with it. People won't care because they will know there will be no legal ramifications.

I'm not suggesting a complete, carte blanche, Bells.
If an investigation does find serious wrongdoing, then of course that needs to be addressed.
But, a large degree of lenience does need to be offered in order to find systemic problems and cultures of poor practice.
otherwise, you get the situation we currently have in the health industry (and many others), where people are afraid to speak up, and people like Dr Patel can get away with not-quite-murder for far too long.

People do care, Bells.

And you have completely misread and misrepresented my argument. I have been very consistent in saying that if someone is responsible and that it is more than likely that we will never know what caused it or how it got into and onto the sprouts.

That's because people are afraid to speak up for fear of punishment.

Don't you see? There could be easily fixable systematic problem in a workplace or industry that discourages people from doing the right things.
But, if people don't speak up for fear of punishment, then how are you going to find out?

Here's a thought exercise:

Imagine this handwashing protocol:
- Scrub hands 3 minutes
- Rinse
- Wait for hands to air dry, with hands above elbows.
- Don gloves

Say we know that this protocol is effective in preventing transmission of foodborne pathogens.
Say that it becomes common practice in a workplace to take shortcuts, because of time pressure or something - people scrub for a shorter time, or don't wait for their hands to dry.
Mostly, this might still be OK. But on the one time in a hundred thousand that it isn't, a food poisoning incident happens.

What will the workers say?
If they are afraid of punishment, they are likely to not report that they don't stick to the protocol, the protocol's failure-in-practice might go undiscovered, and future outbreaks might not be prevented.​

Here's another thought exercise:

Imagine that the handwashing protocol has a 0.1% failure rate for people who have an active diarrheal infection, so workers with diarrhea are required to take sick leave.
Imagine that a worker has cronic diarrhea from crohne's disease. They have used up their sick leave, they need this job, and they know that their diarrhea isn't due to an infection, but they also know that the diarrhea protocol doesn't differentiate between diarrheas, so they hide their condition and continue working.
Unknown to them, they also become infected with a diarrheal bacteria, and unluckily cause an outbreak.

Will they tell their story? Or will they keep mum for fear of punishment?
Should they be punished?​

Do you see that a culture of punitive repercussions is damaging?

 

[Pete]

Really?
Since I can't recall a single case where a pilot has been on trial for the deaths of his passengers no matter what kind of errors s/he may of made trying to fly the plane. Indeed, I don't think it will (or should) ever occur.

But the case in question was rather unusual, was it not?
It seemed not to be an error, but a deliberate action.

*EDIT*
My mistake, I got the cases mixed up.
In the case of American Airlines - Flight 587, I do not think the pilot should stand trial. His actions caused the crash , but that doesn't make him blameworthy, because you can't blame someone for performing what they have been led to believe were reasonable actions in that situation.

I too would like to know what Bells and Read-Only think about whether that pilot should stand trial.


And to address an earlier post I missed:

In this case it was the same thing.
He deliberately crashed the plane.

Yes, int that case it was the same thing, but that doesn't make your translation of the sentence you quoted accurate.

Well that's kind of ducking the issue since AFAIK there never have been trials for pilots causing crashes because of poor piloting, but most crashes are because of pilot error and there is typically only two pilots on any given flight, so realisticlly most crash investigations do focus on the pilots and do end up finding someone to blame.

This thread is explicitly about criminal repercussions, and the way that investigations are approached.
Air crash investigations were held up as an example in which investigations are conducted without any view to repercussions for people whose actions contributed to the incident.

Watch this about the final minutes of Eastern 401 and tell me who you would make stand trial and why since it was clearly pilot error that caused the crash?

No one.

 

[adoucette]

But the case in question was rather unusual, was it not?
It seemed not to be an error, but a deliberate action.

*EDIT*
My mistake, I got the cases mixed up.
In the case of American Airlines - Flight 587, I do not think the pilot should stand trial.

Ok, we're back on the same page.

I also agree, if the Egypt Air pilot had survived (say the other pilots had managed to wrest control from him and prevented the crash as they were trying to do) he should stand trial as his actions to crash the plane were deliberate.

Arthur