==============================
human beings make mistakes and there is no regulatory action, remedial or otherwise, that can eliminate all mistakes. Our precedent does not attempt to excuse mistakes due to proven carelessness or demonstrated inattention, but it does attempt to recognize that where an inevitable error of perception does occur, the pilot should not face sanction if he has acted responsibly and prudently thereafter
==============================
The NTSB said Merrell had an "inevitable error of perception" (mistakes don't have to be "wrong" in the "right and wrong" sense. sh*t happens. of course, you might be more judgmental than me or the NTSB ). The NTSB said he was not shown to be careless or inattentive and that he acted responsibly and prudently. Those are the NTSB's factual findings in the case. That's why I said, "taking Merrell at face value."
The FAA may have disagreed but it didn't prevail on that - Merrell was not factually responsible for the error because the NTSB said he was not. What the FAA prevailed on was the legal issue of whether Merrell could be violated even if he =wasn't= responsible for the error. And =that= is what the FAA prevailed on. That the regulation requiring adherence to instructions is one of strict liability without fault.Ron Levy said:
Imposing strict liability for a regulatory violation is not an unusual position for the FAA, or for that matter governments in general, to take. There's another discussion floating around about a FO who misses something in the preflight inspection he was delegated to do. I don't think delegating a preflight to a FO is "wrong" or "fault" but the PIC will be held responsible.
