Introduction
The incident involved the crash of a sightseeing helicopter high up in the crevasse of the Rocky Mountains. The pilot of the ill-fated plane was described as experienced, with over four thousand hours of flight. At the moment of the incident, it was reported to be worryingly overcast, not forgetting rainfall. According to the quality assurance manager of the helicopter’s owners, a tourism firm, the chopper crashed just moments after taking flight from the glaciers at an altitude of 2500 meters, specifically at a chosen spot referred as The Chancellor. There were six passengers on board, all tourists, among them a sporting dignitary.
Early intelligence based on the extent of debris spread as well as scorch marks on the cliff face above the crash site gave the impression that the machine had collided before going down in the crevasse. It is interesting to note that no mayday alarm was raised by the pilot, telltale signs of a rapid tragic event. Astonishingly, the aircraft did not have a transponder or a black box. The absence of these diagnostic devices complicates the situation at hand since they provide real-time information regarding the elements of the fatal disaster. It is wrong for the tourist firm the practice weak risk management policies by disregarding the existence of the devices mentioned above.
Besides, the experienced pilot had been flying since childhood, ruling out negligence on his part. However, flying a chopper does not rely on experience since the terrain change could negatively impact the skills of any pilot. Furthermore, Ewing (2013) elucidates that the severe weather conditions introduce another risky exercise, even to the paying tourists who are on a schedule and cannot wait for the angry clouds to clear. The presence of a pilot amongst the touring group could have given them false confidence to go on with their recreational ventures.
Technical Analysis
The national transport and safety board conducted independent investigations as well as the manufacturer of the helicopter. It was discovered that the landing site lacked visible markers on the glacier. The complaint had been lodged earlier, in fact, days before the crash. Thus, the groundsmen manning the airfield ought to be held liable for the predicament. The civil aviation authority also received notice of the improper facilities in such high altitude, but they were slow to act if they intended to act at all. The chopper blades might have struck the steep walls of the glacial valley hard, rendering the pilot's control of the machine, sending the passengers to their demise.
It is impractical to forget the effect of poor visibility worsened by the climatic conditions of the high altitudes. Maybe a gust of wind stream blew the aircraft out of control, leading to the collision. Another blameworthy factor that resulted in the fatal accident is the malfunction of software systems on board the helicopter. There are numerous recorded instances of the same type of chopper, plummeting from the skies due to technical malfunctions. The helicopter may have been fitted with obsolete information technology systems that did not warn the pilot of impending disaster. Landing and takeoffs can be simplified through the usage of global positioning systems, which require updating due the dynamic nature of data improvement in the technological sector. Such digital engine control systems could override the manual engine control and make the helicopter surge towards the ice.
Moral Postmortem
The pilot cannot be absolved of the partial blame since he opted to fly in adverse weather conditions. It is clear he was not well acquainted with the mountainous terrain, thus risking his life as well as those of his passengers. Whoever handed him the flight manifest should have advised him on the perils of flying in a new environment, especially with poor visibility.
Conferring to Ewing (2013), the lack of markers to aid the difficult landing maneuvers of a helicopter further elaborates the negligence of the aviation professionals in the mountains. The presence of a celebrity in the wreckage could also indicate foul play although the chances of such a scenario are minimal. The regular pilot of the helicopter’s whereabouts is unexplained, which could answer many pending questions. Where was he during the entire duration of the flight? The tourist firm cannot comment on such discrepancies with their operations since they do not want to incriminate themselves from responsibility. The National Safety and Transport Board should provide circumstantial evidence as to the cause of the accident, so as to encourage closure within the families of the deceased. They should ensure all landing sites whether small or commercial have minimum amenities for the safety of their visitors. It is unfair for tourists to flock to a destination, bringing their abundant hard earned money to the establishment, where they are not assured of minimal safety procedures for their benefit.
Rodrigues & Cusick (2012) point out that there are also countless inaccuracies as to the service history of the doomed chopper since the tourist firm holds no up to date records indicating frequent maintenance of the machine. The quality assurance manager really ought to roll his sleeves and ensure the entire fleet is thoroughly serviced and defective elements replaced with genuine, up-to-date spare parts.The principle of non-maleficence, where an individual does no harm to himself or other people in his vicinity works best in this scenario. The tourist firm risked their helicopter by giving it to a tourist pilot, even though he displayed adequate experience with flight.
According to Kant (2012), the autonomous nature of the willfulness of any rational being gives an excellent motive for any actions. Hence, people should conform to this behavior that demonstrates dignity with oneself. For example, the pilot acted with his decisions to take control of the helicopter and fly his group of tourists to enjoy the splendor of nature. When a person’s will drives him to act, then it is the sovereignty of the mind, body and soul.
Executive Moral Judgment
There is sufficient proof for the existence of a fault in this unfortunate event. The lack of proper protocols whenever a pilot is absent has not only monetary costs but also death. Decisions should be made by the tourist firm to safeguard the credibility of their services as well as ensuring customer satisfaction in the best circumstances. The pilot also erred in judgment by attempting to act as the hero of their group, by availing himself for flight duties, even when he was on holiday. The Civil Aviation Association is also responsible for laxity by leaving the sites under their jurisdiction unmaintained and dangerous. According to Cross (2015), if they had been conducting an analysis of their premises, they would have noticed the issue regarding the landing markers promptly, evading the loss of life. They collect an appropriation of revenue from users; therefore, they should practice thorough diligence with the assets at their disposal.
References
Cross, B. (2015). Moral philosophy, moral expertise, and the argument from disagreement. bioethics. Washington, D.C.: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Ewing, A. C. (2013). Second thoughts in moral philosophy (Routledge Revivals). New York: Routledge.
Johnston, P. (2014). Wittgenstein and moral philosophy (Routledge Revivals). New York: Routledge.
Kant, I. (2012). Fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals. Courier Corporation.
Rodrigues, C. C., & Cusick, S. K. (2012). Commercial aviation safety. New York: McGraw-Hill.
