Criminal negligence overturned in 2002 Winnipeg crash . . .

[Cat Driver]

widow whatever the reason for uneven oversight of the industry there can be no argument that it has been going on for a very long time, it has been this way ever since I can remember.

I doubt I will live long enough to see it change.

Don't forget there is supposed to be another level of government oversight that is supposed to make sure that T.C. is managed properly, it is called the Office of the Minister of Transport which is nothing short of a sad joke.

I prefer the way things are done in most of Africa.

[xsbank]

There was no criminal negligence.

[Doc]

There was no criminal negligence.

It would appear not. Guess that makes us pretty much free from legal intervention, regardless of what we do. At least in criminal court. And, since Transport Canada is busy chasing down pilots who neglected to change their addresses within seven days.......we're pretty much free from their scrutiny as well. Personally, I'm all for anarchy! Let the good times roll! I'm planning to overload, under fuel and .. run on the next opportunity I get. I know I've got a pair of spurs around here somewhere.....

[ywg9]

To me the criminal charges didn’t send a positive message in the first place as suggested by some. He screwed up...BIG TIME that’s not in question, however under the law it wasn’t criminal. It belonged to T.C. to decide the course of action to be taken not the WPS (Winnipeg police service). I think everyone of us should breathe a little easier now that those charges were over turned. Like I said before if they used criminal negligence on Mark than that sets a scary precedence for the rest of us who WILL (at some point and maybe not as big) make a mistake and some over zealous police force decides to press charges. The possibilities would be endless to where you could say a pilot was criminally negligent and charge him/her. I do agree 100% with the dangerous operation of the A/C that one is fitting. Just imagine if those charges stayed who would they go back and charge or who would be next. Maybe the two Air France pilots with their A340 blunder in YYZ that was negligence or maybe Air Transat pilots for there mistake with the whole transferring fuel thing, maybe the Gimili glider pilots they where sort of negligent not checking the MEL properly and in turn running out of juice. The Air Canada pilot who didn’t land ASAP when there lav c/b's stated popping and the plane burst into flames later before everybody could get off. Those are just a few off the top of my head. I don’t mean to point blame at the crew or say there wasn't other factors theses crews faced, but if you give credit to other factors in those cases for not charging those pilots with negligence than you have to do the same and look at other factors that played in the case of Mark. However if you want to look at it the way the WPS, the Crown and the first Judge did than all those crews are just as guilty as mark cause had they changed just one action they could have changed the way the whole outcome played out. I for one am glad the criminal charges were reversed, but I am not saying he shouldn’t have been punished just not with criminal charges cause that would have opened the flood gates wide open and who knows who would be next

YWG

[The Old Fogducker]

Something quite pertinent which hasn't been posted by anyone that I'm aware of ... TC had absolutely nothing to do with this court case, .... nadda ... zippo ... it was exclusively a Winnipeg Police Service "show" from the very beginning.

Bear in mind the then Chief of Police Jack Ewatski was a newly licensed Private Pilot with approximately 100 hours TT .... the investigation and decision to prosecute may have been a "driven from the top down" action from square one.

The first TC heard of it was when they were served with a Search Warrant to gain access to the personnel licensing files.

To those wondering about the concept of "unequal prosecution" in this and similar matters, it happens ever hour of every day. To use a highway Traffic Act example, people speed regularly, and only once in awhile does someone get caught and a ticket issued, taken to court, upheld by a Judge, the fine collected, and points issued against the driver's licence. A cop told me his standard answer to the question ... "Why me when all those other people are speeding too?" His reply was simple ... "Because you're the one I caught."

Even in the former Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, there just aren't enough "watchers" to ensure 100% compliance with any and all laws of the state by the rest of the population ... which is a good thing isn't it?

Oh, and the "Why don't TC shut down Keystone?" ... because when they are inspected, they are in compliance, that's why. Fortunately,we live in a country where a statement of "everybody knows" they are scumbags is not considered to be evidence.

The Old Fogducker

[Cat Driver]

Well then I guess I was jumping to conclusions thinking that there was pressure direct or indirect put on pilots to cut corners at Keystone, have to remember not to take the rumors one reads on these internet forums from anonymous people claiming that pilots were pressured to cut corners at any company as factual.

Yeh, I never ever saw any pressures put on pilots from any company and somehow I got to believing this stuff to be true.

If I have been guilty of saying anything that could be negative about any company out there that were not guilty of what ever I said they have my apology for wrong headed thinking.

What really makes me disappointed in myself is how could I have gotten to be so jaded that I could even think that way.

I bet my being suspicious about how Sonic Blue operated was flawed also taking into consideration all I really had to go on was innuendo and rumors from anonymous people.

[tailgunner]

Cat, yes alot of people have a hand in the completion of a safe flight, they also have a hand in the completion of an un safe flight. But the bottom line is and will always be the pilot in command. This responsibility is often glossed over , it is weakened by our new "team' approach, and it can be undermined by the very CRM skills that we now preach. However, at the end of the day, the PIC holds all of the responsibility and trust to ensure a safe flight. I remember being a wet behind the ears FO looking at the grumpy Capt. and often thinking 'what an easy job', or "I that I could do his job as well, or better than him". It was only after becoming a Capt, and having logged a ton of experience that I realized the importance of being a real PIC. A captain's job, as I know know, is to find reasons to say no. No to taking off when others are, No to carrying the same load that went last week, No to the CP/Ops/Owner who create a "bad" culture, No to doing it any other way but the safe one, No to continuing to a destination when the Wx. is down and fuel is a factor.
This fellow Mark was not a Captain by any measure. He may have had a PPC, but that is a far cry from being a captain....Unfortunately his passengers paid for his role.

[Cat Driver]

Tailgunner I do not believe that I have defended the decisions of that pilot as it has been proven that he was very wrong in his decision making and operation of that airplane.

I was however pointing out that pilots do not operate in a vacuum and they can and do compromise and sometimes keep compromising until they end up like that pilot did.

Do they compromise in a vacuum with no outside pressure to influence their thought process?

Then again maybe I have lost the real picture on how aviation works and am just making a fool of myself in my old age.

For whatever it is worth I did make it to becoming a captain a few years ago and like you found out it was not as easy as I thought it would be when I was a F.O.

I think I owe my survival to not allowing outside influences to blur my decision making to the point it became unsafe.

[tailgunner]

Cat, then I suppose the argument boils down to the level of responsibility that a PIC holds. I am sure that you will agree that the PIC should have the final say, and authority over the operation of his or her flight. With this authority comes responsibilty to ensure the safe outcome of each flight , to do anything less is negligent. When a passenger is killed it unfortunately becomes criminal. The difference between this and other accidents was the CYA principle. Did the captain do everything in his power or ability to best ensure the safe outcome of the flight? Sadly, in this case, he is found very wanting. Did he have an out to rectify his situation as it was devloping? The answer is yes. Did he avail himself of the safe option? The answer unfortunately for Mr. Tayfel, and most unfortunately for his deceased passenger is no. Could he have forseen the outcome of his dereliction of duty and decisions? the answer is a loud yes. He was low on gas..he knew it. He planned it that way. The outcome was obvious.
This is a very interesting topic. I have enjoyed reading all sides of the arguement. To those who are away from loved ones working this Christmas ( like me) I wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

[ywg9]

Tailgunner

Just because someone died doesn't make it criminal, the fact that it was over turned by the court of appeals who also said there was no criminal action proves that. In people opinion it maybe criminal but not by the legal system.

Thanks for xmas cheer hope everyone has a good one too

Ywg

[Cat Driver]

Yes I agree with what you are saying tailgunner, except the criminal part of it.

I do not look on this as an argument I look on it as a discussion that looks beyond the obvious fact the pilot was negligent and made decisions that were indefensible on any level on that flight.

There is no arguing that the PIC holds the final responsibility for the end results of their decisions, however what I am trying to point out is these people do not work in a vacuum with no input from others in the company, especially those in positions of power over the pilots.

Intimidation comes in many forms from direct intimidation from people with power over them to subtle intimidation from their peers who may be chronic rule breakers that set a dangerous example.

To put all the blame on a pilot who has an accident caused by bad decision making is not really the way to solve these issues, I believe the industry must look deeper and identify what molded the pilots drift into flying outside of the rules and that persons eventual final bad decision that ended up with a wrecked aircraft and possibly dead people.

To believe these pilots develop these dangerous decision making traits without anyone else being aware of their behavior stretches the imagination beyond credulity, at least that is my opinion.

Sorry to hear you will be away from home during Christmas but you can look forward to the day you are retired like me and it will all be just a fading memory.

[ywg9]

Cat driver

your 100% right that is why the TSB has taken on looking at other factors as to what caused the crash. To say that in one instance it was problem A that caused a crash but not what lead us to get to problem A doesn't really help us from repeating it. a good example it the DC 10 that crashed into the bog because everybody was looking at a bulb. If you look at it that it was just the pilots who flew it into the ground case closed nothing would have been learned. however when you dig deeper you now have one of the biggest cases that helped evolve CRM. So yes we all agree Mark flew a plane and didn't plan and take enough fuel (I dont think any reasonable person thinks he took off and from the very start he knew he didnt have enough fuel and would run out) but that doenst explain the crash, what caused him to do this what were the other factors. Not to say that because there were other factors he is scott free just to explain his actions so we can try to prevent this from happening again.

YWG

[Cat Driver]

Exactly ywg9, the best way to prevent accidents is through educating new pilots in the importance of following rules that took many decades to put in place learned from the mistakes of others.

I started flying in an era long gone in aviation and over the decades just kept learning and adapting to what we learned.

Even though I am from that era I firmly believe that the internet is the most valuable tool for communication and learning mankind ( and of course womankind. ) has ever had and will be a valuable part of teaching the newer generation of pilots.

[snaproll20]

Thank you Fate, for you did smile
When my behavior was erstwhile.
Oh I’m so glad to be per-fect;
An aeroplane ne’er have I wrecked.
I learned from legends of my craft,
Pushed the limits but never laughed
At odds and chances, risks I took.
Because I kept a mental book
On things I’d never do again,
Safely filed within my brain.
Often times, one small ‘perhaps ‘
May have caused my Luck to lapse.
And in this process, my life at chance,
Was imparted wisdom, a safety stance.
But what of others, less Luck-bent?
Can I condemn their fateful event?
They merely learned at greater cost
A lesson that I never lost.

[Hot Fuel]

Before anybody jumps all over me I realize the courts have had thier say, I'm not a lawyer or a judge therefore it is what it is. All the same I just don't understand how they get there. I looked back at the comments that were being posted a couple of years back when the charges were first announced...this is what I posted, I believed what I said then and still believe it today.

Anybody that thinks they/we should not be accountable for their/our actions is living in dreamland. Why anybody feels the aviation community and in particular pilots should be exempt from accountability for their decisions is beyond me. I agree this may be precedent setting and have far reaching effects on the industry but I also believe that what the crown is attempting falls within their mandate and is also inline with what happens in any other employment sector.

If during the course of your job you make informed decisions that are contrary to what are considered accepted safe practices and that decision places persons or property at unnecessary risk you are being negligent in performing your duties.

If a person or property becomes injured or killed because of your negligence you should be held accountable in all cases. There is a lot of room between having an accident and being negligent causing an accident.

It should be pointed out the company is often just as guilty as the employee, in this case the employee happens to be a pilot. In most other industry’s the employer as well as the employee have to face the music. I suspect that in this case the crown feels they have the evidence necessary to obtain the conviction against the pilot on the basis that he was negligent in the performance of his duties. I think we can all agree that it would be a relatively easy task to gather the evidence to show that the pilot did not have enough gas and that he knew it, it should be a slam dunk for the prosecution. I’m not saying the company should skate in this case but my guess is that as far as criminal charges go the crown probably recognizes that it would prove to be a much more difficult task proving that the company was negligent in ensuring the pilot had sufficient fuel to complete the trip safely.

Keep in mind the issue is not that the pilot had an accident that resulted in a death, rather the crown is trying to prove the pilot was negligent in performing duties that resulted in that death.

neg•li•gence
1. The state or quality of being negligent.
2. A negligent act or a failure to act.
3. Law. Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

I followed that up with this...

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Negligence

: failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation; also : conduct that reflects this failure called also ordinary negligence simple negligence

NOTE: Negligence may render one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries.
Collateral negligence
: negligence on the part of an independent contractor that is not connected with a manner of working or risk ordinarily associated with particular work and for which the employer of the contractor is not liable

Comparative negligence

1 a : negligence of one among multiple parties involved in an injury that is measured (as in percentages) according to the degree of its contribution to the injury <the comparative negligence of the plaintiff> b : a doctrine, rule, or method of apportioning liability and damages in tort law: negligence and damages are determined by reference to the proportionate fault of the plaintiff and defendant with the negligence of the plaintiff not constituting an absolute bar to recovery from the defendant

NOTE: The great majority of states have replaced the doctrine of contributory negligence with that of comparative negligence.
2 : an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence by the plaintiff

Contributory negligence
1 : negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue
2 : a now largely abolished doctrine in tort law: negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue will bar recovery from the defendant; also : an affirmative defense based on this doctrine

Criminal negligence
: a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence

Gross negligence
: negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights —see also RECKLESSNESS —compare CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in this entry

Passive negligence

Failure to do something (as to discover a dangerous condition on one's property) that is not a breach of an affirmative duty and that in combination with another's act is a cause of injury

Slight negligence
: failure to exercise the great degree of care typical of an extraordinarily prudent person

NOTE: The category of slight negligence is used much less frequently than ordinary negligence and gross negligence, the other members of a three-level classification that was formerly prevalent.

Decide for yourself which one fits the situation.

[AuxBatOn]

I am confident, scratch that, CERTAIN that the court does not refer to the Webster or whatever dictionary, but rather, to the criminal code.

From Canada's Criminal Code, 219:

"Every one is criminally negligent who in doing anything, or in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

The Canadian Judicial Council's standard set of jury instructions includes this extract on topic:

"The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the acused's conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct posed a risk of bodily harm.

"Bodily harm" is any hurt or injury that interferes with a person's health or comfort and is more than brief or minor. In deciding what a reasonable person would have done or foreseen, you must not take into account (the accused's) individual characteristics or experiences."

[Doc]

Before anybody jumps all over me I realize the courts have had thier say, I'm not a lawyer or a judge therefore it is what it is. All the same I just don't understand how they get there. I looked back at the comments that were being posted a couple of years back when the charges were first announced...this is what I posted, I believed what I said then and still believe it today.

Anybody that thinks they/we should not be accountable for their/our actions is living in dreamland. Why anybody feels the aviation community and in particular pilots should be exempt from accountability for their decisions is beyond me. I agree this may be precedent setting and have far reaching effects on the industry but I also believe that what the crown is attempting falls within their mandate and is also inline with what happens in any other employment sector.

If during the course of your job you make informed decisions that are contrary to what are considered accepted safe practices and that decision places persons or property at unnecessary risk you are being negligent in performing your duties.

If a person or property becomes injured or killed because of your negligence you should be held accountable in all cases. There is a lot of room between having an accident and being negligent causing an accident.

It should be pointed out the company is often just as guilty as the employee, in this case the employee happens to be a pilot. In most other industry’s the employer as well as the employee have to face the music. I suspect that in this case the crown feels they have the evidence necessary to obtain the conviction against the pilot on the basis that he was negligent in the performance of his duties. I think we can all agree that it would be a relatively easy task to gather the evidence to show that the pilot did not have enough gas and that he knew it, it should be a slam dunk for the prosecution. I’m not saying the company should skate in this case but my guess is that as far as criminal charges go the crown probably recognizes that it would prove to be a much more difficult task proving that the company was negligent in ensuring the pilot had sufficient fuel to complete the trip safely.

Keep in mind the issue is not that the pilot had an accident that resulted in a death, rather the crown is trying to prove the pilot was negligent in performing duties that resulted in that death.

neg•li•gence
1. The state or quality of being negligent.
2. A negligent act or a failure to act.
3. Law. Failure to exercise the degree of care considered reasonable under the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another party.

I followed that up with this...

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Negligence

: failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation; also : conduct that reflects this failure called also ordinary negligence simple negligence

NOTE: Negligence may render one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries.
Collateral negligence
: negligence on the part of an independent contractor that is not connected with a manner of working or risk ordinarily associated with particular work and for which the employer of the contractor is not liable

Comparative negligence

1 a : negligence of one among multiple parties involved in an injury that is measured (as in percentages) according to the degree of its contribution to the injury <the comparative negligence of the plaintiff> b : a doctrine, rule, or method of apportioning liability and damages in tort law: negligence and damages are determined by reference to the proportionate fault of the plaintiff and defendant with the negligence of the plaintiff not constituting an absolute bar to recovery from the defendant

NOTE: The great majority of states have replaced the doctrine of contributory negligence with that of comparative negligence.
2 : an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence by the plaintiff

Contributory negligence
1 : negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue
2 : a now largely abolished doctrine in tort law: negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue will bar recovery from the defendant; also : an affirmative defense based on this doctrine

Criminal negligence
: a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence

Gross negligence
: negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights —see also RECKLESSNESS —compare CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in this entry

Passive negligence

Failure to do something (as to discover a dangerous condition on one's property) that is not a breach of an affirmative duty and that in combination with another's act is a cause of injury

Slight negligence
: failure to exercise the great degree of care typical of an extraordinarily prudent person

NOTE: The category of slight negligence is used much less frequently than ordinary negligence and gross negligence, the other members of a three-level classification that was formerly prevalent.

Decide for yourself which one fits the situation.

BINGO +1

[ywg9]

hot fuel

when I read your post from long ago I noticed that it is from the USA criminal code not canada's. AuxBatOn's post is more correct. and it goes to say that "The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the acused's conduct showed a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen that this conduct posed a risk of bodily harm."
the criminal code fights on the first part but not the AND part, given just that fact that many other pilots at said company have done the samething with much better results you cant prove beyond a reasonable doudt he would have foreseen that this conduct posed a risk of bodily harm

just the way I see it, I think it is great to that everybody is so into this and there really has been no flaming of anybody. It makes for a great conversation and were all staying on point to ni hijacking lol

YWG

[Finn47]

I know a few countries where you can be criminally negligent by 1) doing nothing or 2) by not doing anything. Take your pick.
On the other hand, I can understand that higher courts may want to overturn verdicts of lower courts. It´s in the nature of the court system and the people who work there. In fact, that´s their job, sort of. Sometimes they change verdicts for a reason, sometimes for kicks. Can´t be helped.

[xsbank]

Snaproll, I don't know if you wrote that or not but it says precisely what I've been trying to get across here. Precisely.

[AEROBAT]

If you grab a map and use the fuel burn and leg times given in the TC report you realize how crazy the flight actually was. When you add in flying to the alternate +45 minutes you wonder what the pilot was thinking.

[AuxBatOn]

If you grab a map and use the fuel burn and leg times given in the TC report you realize how crazy the flight actually was. When you add in flying to the alternate +45 minutes you wonder what the pilot was thinking.

If you can convice me that the same pilot would have done the same thing without the pressure from his company to make it happen, and I'll change my mind. In the mean time, I do not believe that it was a case of criminal negligence.

Pressure from the company is a contributing factor. Whatever anybody thinks, it is a scientific fact that under pressure, our tought process isn't the same, and that we may make a decision that we wouldn't make without the pressure. In a commercial environment, it's the company's responsability to make sure there are measures in place that will prevent the pilots to succomb to pressure. (ie: not put unwaranted pressure on the pilots, have a good safety culture, etc)

I think it is fair to say that the company should share the responsibility in that case, and I believe the company should be tried for criminal negligence. Not the pilot.

[AEROBAT]

Auxbaton,
We can beat this to death and you know I cannot convince you of anything or conversely you probably will not change my mind. However I still believe the ULTIMATE responsability rests with the pilot. Of course there may be pressure from his company, everyone in every occupation gets pressure.

I am sure a civil lawsuit will find the company jointly responsable.

[Brewguy]

Let's examine an analogy:
Say a professional engineer designs something ... oh, lets go with a bridge.

Everything is expensive these days (steel, concrete, etc) and the company puts pressure on the guy to get the job done on the cheap. The engineer knows how the bridge should be built, but gives into the pressure and skimps a little on the materials (designs it with a little less steel, and slightly thinner concrete, etc.). Just shaving a tiny bit here & there.

Now, generally speaking things are 'over engineered' on purpose ... built stronger than they need to be. So this engineer thinks to himself, okay, this should still be strong enough.

This isn't the first project he's done it on. So far, all of the other projects he's narrowed the margins on have held up just fine. So he feels okay about doing it this time.

The bridge collapses and kills someone, and injures others.

Guess who is responsible?
The guy whose (professional engineers) stamp is on the drawings. That's who.

Should the company (either his employer and/or the client) share some blame? Possibly. It's them who pushed for getting something done cheaper. But ultimately, it's the so called professional who should have known better, who will be held legally liable, and who will be damn lucky if they are ever allowed to work as an engineer again.

When it comes to building a structure, its the engineer who has ultimate authority (by putting his stamp on a design/drawing). In aviation, it's the PIC.

Just because you've done something you know is wrong (or should have known is wrong) and gotten away with it before, doesn't let you off the hook.

You know those gold bars many commercial pilots wear on their shoulders ... they are there to remind you of the weight of responsibility you carry, not just to make you look cool.

[AuxBatOn]

Let's examine an analogy:
Say a professional engineer designs something ... oh, lets go with a bridge.

Everything is expensive these days (steel, concrete, etc) and the company puts pressure on the guy to get the job done on the cheap. The engineer knows how the bridge should be built, but gives into the pressure and skimps a little on the materials (designs it with a little less steel, and slightly thinner concrete, etc.). Just shaving a tiny bit here & there.

Now, generally speaking things are 'over engineered' on purpose ... built stronger than they need to be. So this engineer thinks to himself, okay, this should still be strong enough.

This isn't the first project he's done it on. So far, all of the other projects he's narrowed the margins on have held up just fine. So he feels okay about doing it this time.

The bridge collapses and kills someone, and injures others.

Guess who is responsible?
The guy whose (professional engineers) stamp is on the drawings. That's who.

Should the company (either his employer and/or the client) share some blame? Possibly. It's them who pushed for getting something done cheaper. But ultimately, it's the so called professional who should have known better, who will be held legally liable, and who will be damn lucky if they are ever allowed to work as an engineer again.

When it comes to building a structure, its the engineer who has ultimate authority (by putting his stamp on a design/drawing). In aviation, it's the PIC.

Just because you've done something you know is wrong (or should have known is wrong) and gotten away with it before, doesn't let you off the hook.

You know those gold bars many commercial pilots wear on their shoulders ... they are there to remind you of the weight of responsibility you carry, not just to make you look cool.

No doubt, the guy screwed up, but it is not criminal negligence. The company that puts pressure on the pilot and treatens him with his job should be.

As far as your analogy, I don't think you can compare both and you are quite wrong with how things work in engineering. In your example, it would be criminal negligence only if the engineer knew his design would not measure up to the required specifications and still stamped it. There is quite a code that your are responsible to in the engineering buisness. Similar to what Doctors and Lawyers have.

Plus, there are often more than 1 engineer working on a project. There is 1 lead engineer that will track the progress of several sub-projects. The lead engineer is usually the one that will sign the blue prints. There are many levels of oversight. This is definately not the case within a normal aviation company in Canada.