Pilot charged in Norman Wells death

[gabo]

Personsally I have mixed feeling about charging him, sure he did act wrecklessly but hasn't he suffered enough

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/20 ... harge.html

A 23-year-old man in Fort Good Hope, N.W.T., has been charged in the death of a pilot who was hit in the head by the wing of a low-flying airplane during a photo shoot earlier this year.

The RCMP say Parker James Butterfield, 23, has been charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of an aircraft in the May 20 incident that killed William James John Bleach, 26.

Bleach, 26, died in an Edmonton hospital three days after he suffered head injuries while taking pictures of a single-engine Cessna 207 aircraft at the Fort Good Hope airport tarmac.

Originally from Ontario, Bleach was working in Fort Good Hope — a Mackenzie River settlement about 800 kilometres northwest of Yellowknife — as a pilot for North-Wright Airways Ltd., which flies people and freight between eight communities in the Northwest Territories using a fleet of 21 small aircraft.

Butterfield is slated to make his first court appearance on Dec. 8 in Fort Good Hope.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/20 ... z14RuxG2Bt

[into the blue]

Let me disagree. If one willingly decides to do something as stupid and reckless as what Mr. Butterfield did on that day, the feeling of shame shouldn't be the only punishment.

[2R]

Volenti non fit injuria (Latin: "to a willing person, no injury is done" or "no injury is done to a person who consents") is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm actually results. Volenti only applies to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk."

Volenti is sometimes described as the plaintiff "consenting to run a risk." In this context, volenti can be distinguished from legal consent in that the latter can prevent some torts arising in the first place (for example, consent to a medical procedure prevents the procedure from being a trespass to the person, or consenting to a person visiting your land prevents them from being a trespasser).

[Nark]

Is it because Butterfield is a pilot, that he shouldn't be charged?

His retardedness killed Bleach. Whats the difference is someone street racing in a Civic in Vancouver, killing a pedestrian?

[Ascender7162]

Is anything happening to the company for allowing this kind of behaviour to happen?

[Sasquash]

Interesting legal argument, but I’m missing how it applies in this case. The victim in this case was certainly not willing to die as a result of this low flying. In fact, using the context of expectation, we could assume the victim might have expected the pilot to be competent enough to achieve the low pass without a hit which clearly, in this instance, was not the case.

If we were to use this legal doctrine that to a willing person no injury is done, then it would appear that police authorities would have no cause to criminally charge gang members willingly going after each other.

Even within the context of civil court, as opposed to criminal court wouldn’t the family have a cause of action against the offending pilot simply on the basis of competency?

It’ll be interesting to see the details as they come along to find out if there was a working relationship between offender and victim, was this planned in advance for the “perfect shot”, where was the victim standing, etc.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

Is it because Butterfield is a pilot, that he shouldn't be charged?

His retardedness killed Bleach. Whats the difference is someone street racing in a Civic in Vancouver, killing a pedestrian?

The difference is: In this case the victim was a participant. He was taking pictures of the low pass. He expected, and consented to the aircraft making a low pass over top of him so he could take pictures. Thus he knew (or should have known) that there was an increased risk and that it would only take a small misjudgment on the pilot's part to come in too low and potentially hit him. I'm not expressing an opinion either way on this case because I don't know enough about it, but this is clearly not comparable to an unsuspecting pedestrian being hit by a street racer.

[shitdisturber]

It'd make for an interesting defense in a civil trial, but criminal law is considerably different. I suspect he'll be found to be just as guilty as Tayfel was for running out of gas.

[RatherBeFlying]

It looks to me like the charges were laid "pour encourager les autres"

Photographers do get killed taking pictures of low flying aircraft. At least the one that surprised me taking pictures of my flare from a ditch just before the threshold had his head below ground level.

Guys, you can get great pics by putting a video cam alongside the camera, watching a remote monitor and triggering the camera from a safe location.

Just make very sure that all pilots that might be using the runway know what's going on.

[bizjets101]

Obituary that appeared in McLean's magazine. Click Here.

Very sad accident, it seems the RCMP made a thorough investigation, in only laying the charge now. As I am not privy to any of their information, I'm in no position to make a call or judge the pilot.

It seems the victim and pilot, where friends, and working together filming the aircraft, which will be a mitigating factor in any eventual sentence, if found guilty or plea deal.

I'm sure the burden of the accident will forever weigh far more on this young pilot than any sentence imposed by the courts.

So obviously this was totally preventable, however foolish, it was still an accident.

To the friends and family of Mr. Bleach - my condolences, I am very sorry for your loss.
It sounds like Bill loved flying, and loved his time living out his dreams in the North.

From Bill's Mom, "My attitude — and Bill had the same attitude — is that you try not just to make sense out of tragedy, but something good has to come of it as well."

[C-FABH]

Whats the difference is someone street racing in a Civic in Vancouver, killing a pedestrian?

The difference is: In this case the victim was a participant. He was taking pictures of the low pass. He expected, and consented to the aircraft making a low pass over top of him so he could take pictures. Thus he knew (or should have known) that there was an increased risk and that it would only take a small misjudgment on the pilot's part to come in too low and potentially hit him. I'm not expressing an opinion either way on this case because I don't know enough about it, but this is clearly not comparable to an unsuspecting pedestrian being hit by a street racer.

One would require more facts to make a solid conclusion. What altitude and location was the pass planned at? Was it planned and agreed to do a low pass over the apron area at less than 10 feet of altitude?

It is one thing to be a participant, but if the pass was planned to be in a different location (e.g. overhead the runway) or at a higher altitude - perhaps 50 ft or 100 ft - it cannot be assumed that the full risk was obvious. In my humble opinion, no professional pilot would operate their employers aircraft in such a reckless manner, so it would almost seem outside the realm of foreseeability unless specifically agreed upon

[Siddley Hawker]

There is a precedent. It happened about 40 years ago. A pilot from the Quebec Government Air Service hit a guy during a low pass with a Beaver on floats. I forget whether he hit him with the float or the trailing antenna, but he was convicted of manslaughter and spent some time in prison.

[AirFrame]

One would require more facts to make a solid conclusion. What altitude and location was the pass planned at? Was it planned and agreed to do a low pass over the apron area at less than 10 feet of altitude?

That's indeed the question. I couldn't tell from the story that the two pilots involved were even doing something together... The first time I read it I thought the pilot on the ground was taking pictures of another, ground-based aircraft, when a second aircraft came out of nowhere and struck him. So even the reporters don't have all the facts, or aren't reporting them. It sounds from the comments on the news page and here like they were doing something pre-arranged though. In which case the pilot on the ground at least must bear some percentage of responsibility for his own fate. It doesn't absolve the flying pilot of all of it though.

One of the rules of flying... If you're going to break the rules, make certain that it's a flawless performance...(ie. if you're going to fly under a bridge, don't hit the bridge).

[ilovelamp]

He is not a criminal, Sending him to prison will not teach anyone a lesson nor will it bring Bill back.. it'll just ruin one more young mans life. I for one do not feel safer if he goes to prison for "rehabilitation" In fact I will feel more uneasy if he goes to prison and comes back out more messed up.

This man probably has an incredible burden on his shoulders. As far as Im concerned there are two things that can happen from this
- He can go to prison funded by us taxpayers and probably come out into our society messed up.. or
-He can continue to be a positive contributing member of our society.

My 2cents

['effin hippie]

Someone got killed. The police and Crown think there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution. Let the court render its judgment.

The option exists to exercise restraint and compassion in sentencing, should the court find Mr. Butterfield guilty; and here I must say I don't think further ruining this man's life does anyone one jot of good.

As for the company, I've been critical of N-W on here in the past, but I don't see how they can be held accountable for 'allowing' this; since you can be certain that if they knew about it, it sure as s*** wouldn't have happened.

ef

[ajet32]

I also don't see how sending this fellow to prison will help with anything. If this is the one great error of his life then a prison sentence will ruin his future and a second family as well.

[modi13]

I think anyone who's taking pictures of a high-wing aircraft like the 207 has a reasonable expectation that the pilot will be able to keep the wing above head level. In fact, the only way I can see an incident like this happening is if the pilot did something dangerous like making an abrupt turn or dipping the wing at low altitude.

As for the company, I've been critical of N-W on here in the past, but I don't see how they can be held accountable for 'allowing' this; since you can be certain that if they knew about it, it sure as s*** wouldn't have happened.

ef

Then the company must be letting its pilots use its aircraft for their own personal use without any oversight, in which case they're liable for negligence. Otherwise, they must have permitted the flight.

[Johnny#5]

yeah, ok...



I'm quite sure North-Wright doesnt allow pilots to use airplanes for personal use. Even if they did they wouldnt be liable.

[North Shore]

^ ^ Hardly.

I'm sure that pretty much every pilot has done a flyby/buzz job in the past. Either buzzing the outcamp, just so the outgoing fishermen know that you'll be at the dock in 5 mins, or taking off short, and pulling off to one side to go over the company office, or taking off empty, pulling up the gear, and flying low along the runway, and then pulling up hard to get a zoom climb. Very, very few have tragic consequences like this...

[Ascender7162]

^ ^ Hardly.

I'm sure that pretty much every pilot has done a flyby/buzz job in the past. Either buzzing the outcamp, just so the outgoing fishermen know that you'll be at the dock in 5 mins, or taking off short, and pulling off to one side to go over the company office, or taking off empty, pulling up the gear, and flying low along the runway, and then pulling up hard to get a zoom climb. Very, very few have tragic consequences like this...

You cant condone this because everyone has buzzed something before. He didn't just do a buzz past, he went over top of someone on the apron extremly low and that guy happens to be dead. Alittle different.

[nutbutter]

I hate to say it, and this is not an informed opinion as I know nothing of the accident or circumstances surrounding the charge, but shouldn't a crouching camera person have fit comfortably underneath the wing of the 207 without too much risk if in a kneeled position? Should the camera operator not share responsibility for the accident for willingly exposing themselves to such risk? I think this case is beyond the RCMP's jurisdiction as we have our own law makers, enforcement, and judgment staff with regards to commercial aviation. I also imagine both families have suffered enough at this point and the pilot is sorry enough already.
This was an unfortunate accident, leave it at that.

[Nark]

Does negligence not mean anything to you folks?

I'm sorry, but his guilt isn't enough punishment for his actions. The Crown, decides if there is enough evidence to support a charge, not AvCanada.

Pull your collective heads out of your asses.

[trey kule]

First of all, Nark, did you realize that Nark is really kran spelled backwards....interesting.

Or at least as interesting as the howling mob. Does anyone, believe anymore in that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty ? Or actually care about the facts?

If, and I emphasie if, this person is found guilty a prison sentence is well justified depending on the circumstances. It might, just might, provide a bit of a deterrent to some others..you know like the ones that post "everyone has done a buzz job"..great rationale. I have heard it from everything from flying overgross, to working for nothing, to walking out on a bond....
People need to own up to their mistakes when they do something intentionally unsafe or illegal that does not go as planned. In my decades of flying I have seen countless examples of people doing intentionally stupid things that didnt work out as planned and then rationalized the hell out of them...and a slap on the wrist, so to speak seldom gets the message accross to these types.

Ruin a young mans life!!!!...I am willing to bet that the victim here would , if he could, willingly change places with the ruined life...he is dead, and if someones negligence or worse caused it I have absoultely no sympathy. You do buzz jobs and something goes wrong..You live with the consequences.k And no...everyone has not done it.

[Indanao]

Hang him. No joke.

[Guido]

Does negligence not mean anything to you folks?

I'm sorry, but his guilt isn't enough punishment for his actions. The Crown, decides if there is enough evidence to support a charge, not AvCanada.

Pull your collective heads out of your asses.

My God... Nark and I agree about something. I guess the apocalypse really is coming!