Accident investigations and outcomes
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra
My post was not an argument. I have no intention of arguing with you.
I agree with you that a "poor / invalid / false" report does not enhance flight safety.
That includes reports based upon incomplete information as a result of people not fully cooperating with/assisting the AAIB - for the reasons already explained by me and others in the Hunter threads and set out by Genghis in this thread. The AAIB cannot properly be blamed in such circumstances. Far from it. The Chief Inspector of the AAIB has (as you are aware) expressed his concerns, and the reasons for them, in some detail. I agree with him.
I did not and would not suggest anything of the sort.
Nor can it be reasonably inferred from anything I have said here or in other threads.
(Edit)
Piltdown Man
You posted while I was writing.
Good explanation of the issues and associated problems.
This is just arguing for the sake of it.
I agree with you that a "poor / invalid / false" report does not enhance flight safety.
That includes reports based upon incomplete information as a result of people not fully cooperating with/assisting the AAIB - for the reasons already explained by me and others in the Hunter threads and set out by Genghis in this thread. The AAIB cannot properly be blamed in such circumstances. Far from it. The Chief Inspector of the AAIB has (as you are aware) expressed his concerns, and the reasons for them, in some detail. I agree with him.
..... because otherwise you seem to suggest that its OK to have some poor AAIB reports that come to incorrect conclusions as long as nobody gets prosecuted.
Nor can it be reasonably inferred from anything I have said here or in other threads.
(Edit)
Piltdown Man
You posted while I was writing.
Good explanation of the issues and associated problems.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 1st May 2016 at 10:14.
FL - the reason I said
is because when I asked
You replied
then further write
Where did the pilot of G-AOIL not fully co-operate? He did, he maintained all along that he had a control restriction. Its just the AAIB did not choose to focus upon that element.
The pilot died in G-STYX so he was never going to be fully co-operate was he, but where in the link here:-
https://sites.google.com/site/gstyxs...ome/background
Who didn't co-operate in that investigation? Was the final report flawed because the people didn't co-operate or because the conclusions were just wrong/incomplete? In that link I can read:-
That is not the same as the AAIB tried did the best with what material they had.
Nor is it the same as attempting to charge people on the basis of their own evidence which was given in good faith.
When you say
Yes you can follow the logic of the view but in practice how many examples really fit that narrative?
That is a failure of the AAIB not the legal system because otherwise you seem to suggest that its OK to have some poor AAIB reports that come to incorrect conclusions as long as nobody gets prosecuted.
Question. When I read about G-STYX or G-AOIL isn't the issue less about the use of the AAIB report in court but the content/integrity of the report itself?
Answer: No.
The issue is flight safety.
The issue is flight safety.
I agree with you that a "poor / invalid / false" report does not enhance flight safety.
That includes reports based upon incomplete information as a result of people not fully cooperating with/assisting the AAIB - for the reasons already explained by me and others in the Hunter threads and set out by Genghis in this thread. The AAIB cannot properly be blamed in such circumstances. Far from it.
That includes reports based upon incomplete information as a result of people not fully cooperating with/assisting the AAIB - for the reasons already explained by me and others in the Hunter threads and set out by Genghis in this thread. The AAIB cannot properly be blamed in such circumstances. Far from it.
The pilot died in G-STYX so he was never going to be fully co-operate was he, but where in the link here:-
https://sites.google.com/site/gstyxs...ome/background
Who didn't co-operate in that investigation? Was the final report flawed because the people didn't co-operate or because the conclusions were just wrong/incomplete? In that link I can read:-
the case against the inspector was deeply flawed, that the AAIB report had drawn conclusions from the evidence that were not fully supported by it
Nor is it the same as attempting to charge people on the basis of their own evidence which was given in good faith.
When you say
The Chief Inspector of the AAIB has (as you are aware) expressed his concerns, and the reasons for them, in some detail.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra
I do not wish to continue exchanges with you because I have concluded that it is a waste of (my) time.
I have already explained the issues and associated problems to you several times in the Hunter threads.
You are, of course, free to continue chasing your tail, but I have no desire to join you.
I do not wish to continue exchanges with you because I have concluded that it is a waste of (my) time.
I have already explained the issues and associated problems to you several times in the Hunter threads.
You are, of course, free to continue chasing your tail, but I have no desire to join you.
FL - I find your response bizarre. The general overview and various regulatory references have been set out as you say. The regulation however does allow reports to be used if the state sees fit - hence the debate one assumes? Other points are being challenged by the various questions in the last post.
The biggest threat to safety in the two accidents cited by others here seem more closely related to the conclusions in the report than the use of that report subsequently in court. When I posed that as a question you said "answer, no".
The biggest threat to safety in the two accidents cited by others here seem more closely related to the conclusions in the report than the use of that report subsequently in court. When I posed that as a question you said "answer, no".
Only the AAIB will know how forthcoming the crew of G-WNSB were - the commander said he could not remember the approach details, which is not necessarily surprising given he suffered a serious injury in the impact.
However, were I in his position with the police also heavily involved, I would be fairly cautious about sharing any partial recollections I might have, no matter how much they might have helped the accident investigation.
However, were I in his position with the police also heavily involved, I would be fairly cautious about sharing any partial recollections I might have, no matter how much they might have helped the accident investigation.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jwscud;
You make an interesting point. I have been questioned by the AAIB following a commercial air transport accident. I can't remember the exact words of the statement they read out before the questioning started but it was along the lines of "we are here to determine what happened. We are not part of any disciplinary process, however the results of our report may be used by your employers, the CAA or police if they believe you have been negligent in any way."
The problem I came up against was that the inspector had effectively decided in his hotel room the night of the accident, and the night before interviewing me what had caused it and accused me of a gross error in my performance calculations. Luckily I had friend with me from BALPA and he realised the inspector's mistake. By that time I had been questioned for two hours fifteen minutes without a break.
When the inspector's mistake was pointed out the rest of the interview went quite quickly (about another hour and a half) what really helped us was when we were able to put the FDR data into a simulator and show exactly how the aircraft behaved. I was shocked at how similar the outcomes were.
A year later the report came out and the P2 and I were gratified to see that there was nothing we could have done, but thanks to the spoutings of a late unlamented journalist some mud stuck.
I learned a couple of lessons from my experience:
1. I had been quite seriously injured, but in the trauma/shock of the aftermath didn't realise it and was not in fact fit to be interviewed.
2. NEVER, EVER GO INTO AN AAIB INTERVIEW WITHOUT KNOWLEDGABLE REPRESENTATION OR A LAWYER. The AAIB are not infallible, but they are exceptionally good. I have visited a couple of times since, both as an interested party and to answer some questions about a later accident I was involved on the periphery of. They are highly dedicated people, but when you prove them wrong they listen and learn.
SND
You make an interesting point. I have been questioned by the AAIB following a commercial air transport accident. I can't remember the exact words of the statement they read out before the questioning started but it was along the lines of "we are here to determine what happened. We are not part of any disciplinary process, however the results of our report may be used by your employers, the CAA or police if they believe you have been negligent in any way."
The problem I came up against was that the inspector had effectively decided in his hotel room the night of the accident, and the night before interviewing me what had caused it and accused me of a gross error in my performance calculations. Luckily I had friend with me from BALPA and he realised the inspector's mistake. By that time I had been questioned for two hours fifteen minutes without a break.
When the inspector's mistake was pointed out the rest of the interview went quite quickly (about another hour and a half) what really helped us was when we were able to put the FDR data into a simulator and show exactly how the aircraft behaved. I was shocked at how similar the outcomes were.
A year later the report came out and the P2 and I were gratified to see that there was nothing we could have done, but thanks to the spoutings of a late unlamented journalist some mud stuck.
I learned a couple of lessons from my experience:
1. I had been quite seriously injured, but in the trauma/shock of the aftermath didn't realise it and was not in fact fit to be interviewed.
2. NEVER, EVER GO INTO AN AAIB INTERVIEW WITHOUT KNOWLEDGABLE REPRESENTATION OR A LAWYER. The AAIB are not infallible, but they are exceptionally good. I have visited a couple of times since, both as an interested party and to answer some questions about a later accident I was involved on the periphery of. They are highly dedicated people, but when you prove them wrong they listen and learn.
SND
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Sir Niall Dementia this applies to the police or CAA. They are not your friends and your arse could be on the line. It is also a good idea to simulate the interview before hand with informed friends and go through expected question and obtain any missing information before hand. Then you will have no surprises, can be in control of the meeting and have a straight story in your favour. Trying to think on your feet in a very stressful situation is asking for a disaster. In a past flying group had two similar situations and it ensured the AAIB and CAA received the correct message although the AAIB missed many of the engineer points as to why things went wrong and did not make the correct diagnoses.
Some good colour from SND post, although again it highlights another case where the fundamental problem was an error of judgement at the AAIB.
Recently the Gnat/CarFest accident has been reported upon by the AAIB and the report seems readily accepted. Now a fuller debate is unable to be had yet because the accident which is in a similar arena has yet to be reported upon, however it will be interesting to see if that report is as readily accepted.
Further the Gnat accident highlights issues of currency and recency, yet I'm interested in the element that created that issue. i.e. during the accident investigation process had the aircraft suffered an obvious structural failure would the AAIB highlighted the pilots currency / recency as a potential issue? Would we in the peanut gallery have taken issue with the same? Others are focused upon him being a PPL, but of course that isn't the case in the yet to be reported accident.
Then what of the timing of that information release? After all if the AAIB were always going to be concerned with pilot experience and type of aircraft being flown (regardless of the cause of the accident) that would have been known in the Gnat accident within days/weeks of the accident. Why not flag that earlier and by May 2016 authority / interested parties would be giving solid answers not taking away the question.
Recently the Gnat/CarFest accident has been reported upon by the AAIB and the report seems readily accepted. Now a fuller debate is unable to be had yet because the accident which is in a similar arena has yet to be reported upon, however it will be interesting to see if that report is as readily accepted.
Further the Gnat accident highlights issues of currency and recency, yet I'm interested in the element that created that issue. i.e. during the accident investigation process had the aircraft suffered an obvious structural failure would the AAIB highlighted the pilots currency / recency as a potential issue? Would we in the peanut gallery have taken issue with the same? Others are focused upon him being a PPL, but of course that isn't the case in the yet to be reported accident.
Then what of the timing of that information release? After all if the AAIB were always going to be concerned with pilot experience and type of aircraft being flown (regardless of the cause of the accident) that would have been known in the Gnat accident within days/weeks of the accident. Why not flag that earlier and by May 2016 authority / interested parties would be giving solid answers not taking away the question.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have many times in the past on many forums said much the same as Sir Niall above.
This applies to the CAA/AAIB the Police, the Inland Revenue, the RSPA, TV licence inspectors, and even insurance companies.
None of them are your friends
They are all looking for a 'quick, cheap win', and one which make them look good to their bosses: and that primarily involves stitching YOU up as the culprit.
This was first explained to me by a semi-retired lawyer giving an industrial law sub-course as part of my engineering degree.
Once they discover as he explained that you are going to be as awkward as possible and COST them seriously amounts of money, time and manpower they will go off and look for someone more gulible.
I would second the comment never to go to an interview with any of the above not exclusive list without legal representation - in fact I would never go in the first place and require all questions and answers to be in writing.
This applies to the CAA/AAIB the Police, the Inland Revenue, the RSPA, TV licence inspectors, and even insurance companies.
None of them are your friends
They are all looking for a 'quick, cheap win', and one which make them look good to their bosses: and that primarily involves stitching YOU up as the culprit.
This was first explained to me by a semi-retired lawyer giving an industrial law sub-course as part of my engineering degree.
Once they discover as he explained that you are going to be as awkward as possible and COST them seriously amounts of money, time and manpower they will go off and look for someone more gulible.
I would second the comment never to go to an interview with any of the above not exclusive list without legal representation - in fact I would never go in the first place and require all questions and answers to be in writing.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so let's say you're helping police with enquiries. You ask them to put every question in writing. And you want to respond in writing. Assume for one moment they humour you.....you are going to be spending days in the interview room.
Can you imagine in court proceedings. Whilst giving evidence or under cross examination...you want to give your answers in writing.
Can you imagine in court proceedings. Whilst giving evidence or under cross examination...you want to give your answers in writing.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB reports
As I have now stepped down from instructing or solo flying, any accidents involving my flying will be the fault of the supervising instructor/solo pilot!
Over the course of my 3,000 + hours, (I don't bother keeping track any more!)
I have observed and reported to the AAIB three interesting events.
In Case One, myself and two other tug pilots had quit flying for the day, as the weather at the gliding club was very poor. We were gazing at the murk out the clubhouse window, as a Cessna 180 that is KEPT ON OUR FIELD approached downwind, did not touch down until more than half way down the runway, and carried on into the hedge at the far end - where his wife had been waiting in her car! In his report to the AAIB he blamed it on the gliding club not responding to his radio call, (we never do, and he knew it!) nor did we advise him of conditions (we don't do that either, when we have shut down for the day! Of course the AAIB gave credence to his evidence.
Second event. A helicopter lifted out of a field directly on the approach line where a glider was completing his first five hour solo. I was running the ground events, we had absolutely no idea he was there so close, or that he was there at all. His report to the AAIB was economical with the verity.
And number three, I was towing a glider toward Shipston. The very experienced and qualified pilot on tow warned me of traffic, I looked but didn't see it, and he then said in no uncertain tones, TURN LEFT NOW! ! ! ! !
So I did, and the light aircraft, which was training some numpty in blind flying with some of the windows obstructed, more or less ran its wheels over my roof. And said they never saw us at all! Here again the story was a tad different from our experience, but the AAIB has to listen to all concerned. I give them great credit that they actually tracked down the numpties from radar evidence. Good show! But I did call the airfield where this flight had originated, and got some details they left out of their version! About the blocked vision! haven't these people ever heard about foggles?
Glider pilots assume that power chaps don't look out. Self preservation.
Over the course of my 3,000 + hours, (I don't bother keeping track any more!)
I have observed and reported to the AAIB three interesting events.
In Case One, myself and two other tug pilots had quit flying for the day, as the weather at the gliding club was very poor. We were gazing at the murk out the clubhouse window, as a Cessna 180 that is KEPT ON OUR FIELD approached downwind, did not touch down until more than half way down the runway, and carried on into the hedge at the far end - where his wife had been waiting in her car! In his report to the AAIB he blamed it on the gliding club not responding to his radio call, (we never do, and he knew it!) nor did we advise him of conditions (we don't do that either, when we have shut down for the day! Of course the AAIB gave credence to his evidence.
Second event. A helicopter lifted out of a field directly on the approach line where a glider was completing his first five hour solo. I was running the ground events, we had absolutely no idea he was there so close, or that he was there at all. His report to the AAIB was economical with the verity.
And number three, I was towing a glider toward Shipston. The very experienced and qualified pilot on tow warned me of traffic, I looked but didn't see it, and he then said in no uncertain tones, TURN LEFT NOW! ! ! ! !
So I did, and the light aircraft, which was training some numpty in blind flying with some of the windows obstructed, more or less ran its wheels over my roof. And said they never saw us at all! Here again the story was a tad different from our experience, but the AAIB has to listen to all concerned. I give them great credit that they actually tracked down the numpties from radar evidence. Good show! But I did call the airfield where this flight had originated, and got some details they left out of their version! About the blocked vision! haven't these people ever heard about foggles?
Glider pilots assume that power chaps don't look out. Self preservation.
No, totally separate organisations.
In my dealings with both, I've found AAIB much more thorough and useful in terms of constructing useable recommendations likely to actually enhance flight safety.
G
In my dealings with both, I've found AAIB much more thorough and useful in terms of constructing useable recommendations likely to actually enhance flight safety.
G
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
variety between countries investigations
During my RAF service and then civil flying, 20+ years in each, I was a bystander in two accidents and a participant in two.
The standards of investigation vary greatly
My accident report from Russia stated "the pilot allowed the helicopter tail to touch the ground during the landing". Actually the aircraft was out of control for the last 100 ft and crashed nose first into soft ground as shown by my post crash photographs. The nose area was smashed in but the nose leg was intact
There is, of course, room for opinion but the facts don't change.
Aswell as doubting the media and interested parties reports we should have great care accepting without question some countries statements,
The standards of investigation vary greatly
My accident report from Russia stated "the pilot allowed the helicopter tail to touch the ground during the landing". Actually the aircraft was out of control for the last 100 ft and crashed nose first into soft ground as shown by my post crash photographs. The nose area was smashed in but the nose leg was intact
There is, of course, room for opinion but the facts don't change.
Aswell as doubting the media and interested parties reports we should have great care accepting without question some countries statements,
