Damages for dead Yak pilot's family [Archive]

pistongone

17th Oct 2006, 13:00

noisy

17th Oct 2006, 13:22

IIRC from the preliminary report, the engineer in question recalled losing a similar screwdriver.

..and personally, I'd rather have my Brother/uncle/dad back. Sadly this is impossible for the family concerned.

pistongone

17th Oct 2006, 13:29

Noisy, could you give a link to that report please?

noisy

17th Oct 2006, 13:36

Hi PG,

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_024587.pdf

It seems that the AAIB's concern was that there was no tool control system at this organisation, although it seems that the pilot may have touched the screwdriver. See page 5. (I don't have any kind of axe to grind btw)

N

stiknruda

17th Oct 2006, 13:52

S-Works

17th Oct 2006, 14:27

I knew Tony and regularly competed against him at aeros comps. His loss was a very sad occurence.
Pistongone - your post shows appalling bad taste as well as ignorance. I'm truly glad that YOU feel better.
What a knob.
Stik

pistongone may not have expressed his views in a tactfull way much the same as you have not Stik. But he does have a point. It seems that an award was made on cirmumstantial evidence. How did the screwdriver get into the aircraft? How come it had the pilots DNA on it? I have borrowed my maintanance guys tools on more than one occassion and can easily see how it could have been forgotton and ended up where it should not have.

Will the money bring the dead guys back?

My 2 cents.

Maxflyer

17th Oct 2006, 14:30

Pistongone,
are you an employee of YAK UK Ltd? Your polemic against the people involved in this sad accident is quite staggering, which makes me wonder if you have a connection to any of this?
Perhaps a little personal moderation should be applied before posting something like your attack!:confused:

pistongone

17th Oct 2006, 14:33

Sticknrudder,
i am sorry your offended by my post, but i wanted to make a point of the litigious mentality that prevails in this country. How do you or any other person know who's screw driver, if indeed that was the cause of the loss of control, it was? The accident rate on the roads of the UK is 3500/year, ish. so in the last week appx 67 people died and you didnt feel any remorse or otherwise for them did you? You may even have been cursing in the resultant traffic jam caused by one of them!
My point is, when ever anything happens, Lawyers'R'us come running and someone cops a large bill! So Stick, if you can say hand on heart that the pilot or his brother, who incidently didnt seem to cause you as much concern as the pilot, never ever carried out any home maintenance on the aircraft, then i will modify my views. However, seeing as the pilot isn't with us anymore, i think we can assume the person i am actually agreeved with is the one who made the claim. PROBABLY A LAWYER on legal aid even. You see Stick, when things are not connected with yourself, personally, it is easier to be objective!!! Imagine if the AAIB boy's knew someone personally involved? They would be off the job, same with the Police, Judges,Lawyers and Doctors. So i feel for you while you are mourning the loss of your friend, but i still feel angry at the claims'R'us mentality that brought this case to court, resulting in a large damages award!
As for me being a knob, well i will just put that down to your being agreeved, or maybe just being vocabularily challenged:confused:

Mercenary Pilot

17th Oct 2006, 14:39

How do you or any other person know who's screw driver, if indeed that was the cause of the loss of control, it was?

We know because the AAIB report states it.

S-Works

17th Oct 2006, 14:57

We know because the AAIB report states it.

Playing devils advocate here, the report has not positivly identified the screwdriver as belonging to YAK UK, just that a trainee had lost a similar item. It also could not explain how the screwdriver had the pilots DNA on it.

How about this for a scenario (one I have done myself in fact):

Pilot needed to open a hatch or similar, did not have a screwdriver, looked around the hanger, found screwdriver in trainees open toolbox, "borrowed" it. Got distracted doing something else and forgot about the screwdriver. The rest is history.

It just strikes me that this is a payout based on very scanty facts in fact mostly surmisation.

pistongone

17th Oct 2006, 15:00

So now we know that the screwdriver in question was the one the Trainee mechanic lost and the pilot had obviously used(his DNA being present). I think it quite likely, given these factors, the pilot may have left the screwdiver there himself. As i alluded to in my first post. Without getting into a theological debate, i would like to say, with the best will in the world, when your times up, its up! I speak as someone who lost a kidney in a motorcycle racing accident, and came quite close to the check out! As a consequence i look at life in a different perspective.

Mercenary Pilot

17th Oct 2006, 15:06

I had exactly the same scenario in my mind so I agree 100% bose-x and i'm sure that these facts will be brought up in an appeal. I would think that DNA on the screwdriver would lead to a strong defense.

However, the screwdriver is certainly the cause of the accident and very likely did come from the YAK UK workshop.

bingoboy

17th Oct 2006, 15:06

The next of kin in any accident should not be blamed in any way for sueing. The result is usually down to the quality of advocates as I'm sure Yak Uk or their insurers are only too aware.

yakker

17th Oct 2006, 15:30

What emphasis was put on it being the pilots responsibility to check his aircraft for loose objects before flying? Our group check the aircraft before a flight and again afterwards. It is always sad when a pilot dies in such a way, but in this case, it does not seem clear cut as to who was to blame.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

17th Oct 2006, 15:38

For the benefit of those not familiar with the Yak 52, it may be worth pointing out how that srewdriver might have got where it got. Anything dropped into the cockpit, either directly or by falling out of someone's pocket, can very easily end up in the position that screwdriver was found - jamming the elevator mechanism at the very rear of the fuselage.

And as the report says, a screwdriver is essential for pre-flighting a '52 to release the covers for the fuel and oil.

I used to do a 'loose objects' check before flight, but such a check is never going to be conclusive since objects can become wedged in places out of sight and which do not reveal themselves in the customary 'slap the fueslage underside' check.

Genghis the Engineer

17th Oct 2006, 15:46

I'd just like to make a point.

Any decision to award damages was made by a court, which was presented with evidence both for and against culpability and thus the award. A great deal of effort will have gone into preparing and presenting that evidence - which will comprise vastly more information than is contained in the AAIB report (or is available to most of us). It is on that large body of evidence, and expert arguments, that a conclusion and award for damages were based.

It's also the case that anybody who is in this business should have substantial public liability insurance, and anybody who has lost a member of their family has lost a great deal. Whilst one may have a dim view of some members of the legal profession, it is the mechanism to ultimately decide whether the person/family who have lost much, should be compensated by the insurance of the organisation. There isn't really another way.

It would be very interesting to see the court proceedings, does anybody know if such things become readily accesssible?

G

stickandrudderman

17th Oct 2006, 17:29

I'd like to know what lottery numbers that guy uses!;)

IO540

17th Oct 2006, 19:55

It's negligent to design a plane so that something can transit from the passenger space to somewhere where it matters.

Why do people design them in that way?

spernkey

17th Oct 2006, 19:59

I used to send my Cesspit drivers for a spin with Tony and i have to report his fastidiousness in frisking for loose objects - so i reckon he knew the risks associated with an open floor design.
He was quite the most superlative aerobatic pilot and a completely "Inclusive" person. I detected none of the arrogance you get with some.
Ironically Yak owners at the time were forced to bring their machines onto the UK reg when,really, they were happy to stay with Lithuanians or Checkos or whatever. I always thought it a bit arrogant of our authority to force this change as these Easterners did invent the aircraft and may have even learnt a bit about them over the last 30 years?
I feel sorry for the engineer who would seem to have made a mistake.
I feel a bit more perplexed and slightly cross about the **** trying to make assertions about a pair of brothers who had taken their flying to levels of excellence and experience few of us could really relate to.
I abhor this sanctimonious attitude of "If i ridicule others i must be agrandising myself" - do they know how they sound??? Couldn't those brain cells expended writing posts of that tone be best sacrificed elsewhere? I submit.
Spernkey Bowlock

S-Works

17th Oct 2006, 20:24

stiknruda

17th Oct 2006, 22:33

I know the people at Little Gransden well (learned to fly there)and i would be surprised if it was THEIR screwdriver in the cables! The finding of a foreign object doesn't prove a thing! Maybe the chap had some bad freinds? Maybe some Hoodies didnt like his choice of clothes ? Maybe he was tinkering himself and forgot the thing was there? Also is his brother not as important to be accorded the same media coverage due to his NOT being a Falklands vet? One last point, when i was taught aero's we went up to 4000' so if anything whent wrong you had time to sort it or get out, so slicing a wing through some power cables would have been a bit unlikely. Sorry if i dont sound sympathetic to the bereaved, i do. But taking money from someone without conclusive evidence is just a sign of this litigious country we live in and it really ks nt rds off!
Now i feel a bit better.
The report said "the damages for the dead pilots family"
So how much is the dead brothers family going to try for?

Okay, so what exactly annoyed me earlier?

It was THEIR screwdriver.

Sure it could have had the pilot's DNA on it. I quite frequently (with previously agreed permission) borrow my engineer's screwdriver to open my cowls. However, if I did not replace it in its bespoke receptacle, he'd know immediately that it was AWOL and might alert me to the fact. He operates out of the same hangar and has a tool replacement regime to minimise just that sort of thing.

Piston/kidney gone had not at the time of his first posting actually read the AAIB report that came out QUITE some time ago.

P/K gone then threw up some totally spurious scenarios that really had no relevance. (Bad friends/hoodies)

Sorry that Tony is DEAD, yeah I was upset at the time. Sorry that his brother met his demise in the same accident, sure BUT although I met their parents once, I never met the brother.

Falklands vet - well some of us have put our lives on the line for HM/mankind and some of us never will. (Although not a betting chap, I know where I'd wager that you have never stood, PG!)

Aeros above 4000' - well P/K gone is truly a sky-God or has over-indulged in the risk assessment avoidance bit.

Flying for most of us is fun, it carries a risk - that's what makes it fun! To die by one's own hand is acceptable - you tend to die of aviation through EXUBERANCE or catastrophic mechanical failure. The latter if preventable is surely negligence.

Tony's wife and daughters deserved better than his untimely demise and a curmudgeonly £1/4 mill is pretty poor recompense.

As for me being a knob, well i will just put that down to your being agreeved, or maybe just being vocabularily challenged

Agrieved - no. You just came over as a knob of the highest order and still do, challenged by my vocab, I don't think so as many on here who know me will attest.

PM me - I'll give you my real name and we can discuss it face to face if that would make you feel better. However, as you seem to know everything it probably won't help. Shame.

Stik

S-Works

17th Oct 2006, 22:54

Sorry Stik, you are way out of order here and Robert always said you were a reasonable guy. I have read the report and to be frank it smacks as much of crew negligence as that of the maintanance organisation. A trainee had a screwdriver removed without his permission and it not being noticed until the accident and the trainee voluntarily coming forward to suggest it may be his.

What was the pilot doing borrowing without permission? DNA traces prove he handled the screwdriver. I see nothing to blame the maintanance organisation any more than the pilot.

It is a shame that they both died but death is inevitable. Lets not get into a totallyt irrelevant discussion on war veterans. I am a war veteran and have some little medals for it. Will that have made me a better person when I am dead? I doubt it.

So lets all calm down a little eh?

Mercenary Pilot

17th Oct 2006, 23:07

With due respect Bose-x, negligence of the crew would indicate an act which falls below the standards set by CAA regulation.

The following two safety recommendations are made as a result of this investigation:

Safety Recommendation 2003-71
The CAA should require the Yak-52, and aircraft of a similar design operating on the UK register, to have fitted a method of preventing loose articles migrating to a position where they could interfere with the operation or jam the flight controls.
(The maintenance organisation has already implemented the installation of a ceconite bulkhead, with a clear view panel, in the rear of all relevant aircraft. This bulkhead is being installed, on an opportunity basis, when aircraft are subject to routine maintenance by the organisation.)

Safety Recommendation 2003-72
The CAA should publicise the circumstances of this accident in order to bring to the attention of Licenced Engineers (LAE) and maintenance organisations the need for them to have in place an effective tool system that reduces the likelihood of tools being left in aircraft after maintenance.

S-Works

17th Oct 2006, 23:21

MP, no need to point anything out to me, I read the report and the RECOMENDATIONS. Neither of which indicate blame.

At the end of the day someone missed the screwdriver. So who is to blame the crew who borrowed it without permission or the trainee without tool control? You could perhaps describe this as "falling below the standards set by CAA regulation"?

I would say there is an element of shared blame and being an ace pilot does not prevent a mistake having been made.

I have no axe to grind, just taking a disspassionate view about the situation.

twelveoclockhigh

18th Oct 2006, 07:09

There is not necessarily any conflict between the AAIB report and the court's judgement.

The family might have been suing the engineering firm for £2.7 million and on the basis of the facts the judge might have decided that the pilot was 90% responsible and the engineer 10% - hence £270,000.

Perhaps a poster from the legal profession who has access to the court record could give us his interpretation.

smarthawke

18th Oct 2006, 07:43

mad_bear

18th Oct 2006, 08:13

I'd just like to make a point.
It's also the case that anybody who is in this business should have substantial public liability insurance, and anybody who has lost a member of their family has lost a great deal. Whilst one may have a dim view of some members of the legal profession, it is the mechanism to ultimately decide whether the person/family who have lost much, should be compensated by the insurance of the organisation. There isn't really another way.

I agree. It is at least possible that the availability of insurance cover is partly responsible for this decision. It certainly won't be the first time in legal history that a court decision has been swayed, when the chain of events is not entirely clear, by the fact that the defendant is substantially insured. I wouldn't like to say whether this is good or bad, but it happens.

dublinpilot

18th Oct 2006, 08:25

Piston/kidney gone had not at the time
[.....]

P/K gone then threw up some totally

His nick is pistongone. Can we please leave out the name calling? :yuk:

S-Works

18th Oct 2006, 08:34

Totally agree with you stik.
Incredible how a lot of people here tell everyone to wait for the AAIB reports to come out and now there's a load not wishing to believe them! Anyone with any knowledge of a Yak will know how difficult it is to see down the back of a fuselage amongst the elevator controls on a pre-flight check.
As has been said, Tony was a very experienced aerobatic competition pilot (and a really nice bloke) hence why he was practising aeros at a lower altitude than what most of us do - that's where aero competitions are held.
Bose-x you really are incredible. We all know just how accomplished you are in every walk of life but enough is enough. Now you a DNA crime scene investigator and war veteran! Whether your lamp swinging tales can quite equal to that of Tony who was one of the pilots using the downwash of their SeaKing rotor blades to blow the burning ships lifeboats to safety. No doubt you can beat that......

Your attack on me was unjustified and out of order. I merely tried to play devils advocate. As for my service record, I served as a commissioned officer in the first Gulf war on the front line, did you? I did not attack the character of the pilot or his service record, you started that game.

Whatever you may have thought of the pilot and I am sure he was a really nice bloke, it is obvious from the AIB report that the pilot had some involvement with the screwdriver, the DNA results are quoted by the AIB not by me claiming to be a DNA expert. You have drawn your own conclusions (about a lot of things) and I have drawn mine. A little less on the personal attacks now I think.

Zulu Alpha

18th Oct 2006, 09:12

I have been following this thread and feel it is becoming rather a bit overheated.

Calling people names will not help. The AAIB report seems to outline what is known (and what is not known) quite clearly. It was a terrible accident which should not have happened, there is uncertainty on what happened to the screwdriver. We can speculate whether a tool board would have caught the missing screwdriver or whether it would have just shown that it was missing but no-one knew where/which aircraft. This is just speculation. You may have your opinion and others may have a different one.

We don't know whether this is two insurance companies meeting each other in court or the family trying to gain compensation from Little Gransden. Accusations of 'ambulance chasing' cannot be made without understanding this.

We also don't know why/how the award was made and whether there was some shared blame. So again, until we have some facts it is speculation and opinion.

Unlike Stik, I did not know the pilot but the facts are clearly outlined by the AAIB. He was performing aerobatics in a way that many of us do regularly and with an excellent safety record at BAeA competitions up and down the country during the summer. There was nothing reckless here.

Perhaps we could keep to the known facts rather than making comments based on assumptions which may be wrong.

Sir George Cayley

18th Oct 2006, 09:13

Guys, I think this has gone as far as it can for the mo.

Calm down! Calm down! (in scouse accent)

Mods - Can I ask you to get the key to the padlock please?

Sir George Cayley

pistongone

18th Oct 2006, 09:36

Well it seems there are a lot of people here who didnt' read my post correctly.
Will one of you please explain where i said anything derogatory of the pilot???
The main point of my post was the fact that litigation seems inevitable in this health and safety, politically correct world we find ourselves in, and THAT is what cheeses me off. Also i hate the way the media report these things in a skewed way. IE: (and possibly, this is where you thought i was getting at the pilot) they allways look for the sensational, as normality doesnt sell. Hence the referal to the pilots millitary history. Not a mention of the brother in the head line! THAT IS WHAT MY BEEF WAS!! NOT THE PILOTS SKILLS OR ANYTHING ELSE OF THE PILOT!!
Now a couple of points that came to me on the drive in to work this morning.
1. The screw driver couldnt have been in place at time of take off as a full and free would have shown that up. So it was at a place other than where it was found. So in the vertical ascent it moved from its position and became lodged in the elevator mechanism. So how come when the plane was diving vertically it didnt become dislodged, especially as you would presume all methods were tried. Then on impact, it still stayed in place, appx 190 kn impact didnt dislodge it!
2. If that wasn't the tool used by the crew for pre-flight, then where is the second tool?
3. I am not a DNA expert, but i assume the test was looking for ANY DNA and they only reported the pilots? I may be wrong, but i think that would be a logical conclusion to draw. That may indicate that it was a period of time since the TRAINEE engineer had last touched it.
Lastly, as has been pointed out before, as soon as the mechanic heard of the tool being found, he said it was probably his, which shows great integrity in my book.
I still dont understand why with an altitude of 3000', with loss of control authority the decision wasnt made to abandon the aircraft, as the aaib report said they were wearing parachutes but stil had the belts on.

Zulu Alpha

18th Oct 2006, 09:55

Pistongone,

If you read the AAIB report carefully I think it answers your questions.

stiknruda

18th Oct 2006, 10:23

Pistongone - I apologise for my school yard behaviour.

:{

S-Works

18th Oct 2006, 10:25

Pistongone - I apologise for my school yard behaviour.
:{

Now there is the man whose reputation proceeds him. Nice one Stik.

pistongone

18th Oct 2006, 10:46

Nice one stcik,
lets meet up on Saturday and get the carb ice debate going again!:}
Speaking of whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- - - - - - - - - - -

shortstripper

18th Oct 2006, 10:57

Why do people design them in that way?

Weight usually!

SS

Mercenary Pilot

18th Oct 2006, 11:27

MP, no need to point anything out to me, I read the report

I had posting the recommendations for whose who obviously HAD NOT read the report. That part of my post was not aimed at you directly.

xraf

18th Oct 2006, 11:50

It's negligent to design a plane so that something can transit from the passenger space to somewhere where it matters.

Why do people design them in that way?

Although it seems obvious, the snag is IO540 we are talking about cold war Russian technology. When you fly old aircraft especially military stuff, by default, you accept the fact that it is 'old fashioned' this design flaw may not be acceptable today but when was this designed 50/60 years ago maybe even more? Remember the type of regime they were built for, regardless of the cause the chances of a soviet trainee pilot or his family getting compensation in the 50s or 60s were precisely zero!

Also, no one would jump in a 1950's car and thrash it about like a new one but we tend to think that because its been regularly serviced and its 'military' somehow its different. Clearly these a/c are well serviced and strong but you cant get around the fact that no design is perfect, look at all the threads about current military technology!!:ugh:

I, for one, am delighted that we get to access these aircraft, long may it continue with Jet Provosts, Gnats, Hunters and who knows what else in the future (Sea Harriers are gathering dust!:E) but each type has been superseded by so called 'better' aircraft, and we need to remember this when we strap ourselves to an ageing a/c.

Condolences to those involved and safe flying to all.

Regards

XRAF :ok:

Shaggy Sheep Driver

18th Oct 2006, 11:59

Although it seems obvious, the snag is IO540 we are talking about cold war Russian technology. When you fly old aircraft especially military stuff, by default, you accept the fact that it is 'old fashioned' this design flaw may not be acceptable today but when was this designed 50/60 years ago

The Yak52 looks like a WW2 warbird, but I think it only dates back to the 1970s, so is a much newer desighn than many western light aeroplanes.

The reason it's like that (and why there's, for instance, poor cockpit ergonomics and no gear unsafe warning system, and an engine that can readily suffer hydraulic locks) is that it's a military aeroplane. It was designed to be operated in a very controlled and disiplined environment. Engineers would pre-flight the aeroplane and drain the intakes of oil, a fire crew would stand by during engine start, and flight crew would wear flying suites with zipped pockets and no need to carry a screw driver.

Those of us who operated or operate these aeroplanes in the west are well aware of all this and take the neccessary precautions, as I'm sure this crew did. However, oprating this complex aeroplane outside of its high-manpower military environment will always carry an extra slice of risk, no matter how careful the crew is.

SSD

xraf

18th Oct 2006, 12:23

Completely agree SSD:ok:

You're right, I didnt know it was from the 70's but even that is still over 30 years ago!

LowNSlow

18th Oct 2006, 12:58

My sympathies to all involved. I have seen people who I know are very careful in their preflight checks being very surprised when fabric has been opened up and pencils etc found in the rear fuselage of their aircraft.

When I replaced the carpets in my Aerobat in the early 1990's I found a two shilling piece and a lady's glove which suggests that the previous CofA's were less than rigorous.............

The 1946 Yak-18 evolved into the Yak-18PS (not to be confused with the 4 seat Yak-18T) by the mid 1960s. Production ceased in 1967. The Yak-50 was a derivative of it and took the top two places in the 1976 world championship. The Yak-52 was in turn a two seat tricycle undercarriage version of the Yak-50 which first flew in 1976.
The outwardly similar Nanchang CJ-6 was developed directly from the Yak-18.

Mixed Up

18th Oct 2006, 13:07

Those of us who operated or operate these aeroplanes in the west are well aware of all this and take the neccessary precautions, as I'm sure this crew did. However, oprating this complex aeroplane outside of its high-manpower military environment will always carry an extra slice of risk, no matter how careful the crew is.

That sums it up for me. I've flown aeros in a Yak-52 and knowingly took this extra slice of risk. Why should someone else compensate me (or my family) if it goes pear-shaped?

It's a tragic accident and I feel for all involved (except the legal sharks). I run a business and can especially feel for the maintenance company - I bet it's been a hell of a ride for them. I'm sure the money is no compensation to the pilot's family for their loss.

It does push the cost of flying up for all of us (I wonder how much the sharks got?) and for that reason alone I think we're all entitled to express our views on this subject.

Justiciar

18th Oct 2006, 20:20

There is a very sad and disrespectful tone to this thread. I know nothing about Yaks nor about this accident or the people involved. But, it seems from the report that the High Court made a finding of liability after a trial at which extensive evidence would have been heard and subject to cross examination. The AAIB report would not have been admissable unless by agreement. Undoubtedly the experts gave evidence and the judge decided. Why should the family of a man who did through negligence not recover compensation?

QDMQDMQDM

18th Oct 2006, 21:52

I am a GP. I am in a very dangerous job. More dangerous than that of most hospital consultants. I make countless, life-critical decisions on the fly all day every day and much of the night as well. Mostly, those decisions are adequate, but sometimes they are wrong. Mostly, when they are wrong I am probably not negligent and, anyway, no-one suffers. Occasionally, when they are wrong they turn out to be negligent and someone does suffer. Then I could be sued. And I actually have been. I currently pay £4,515 per year for insurance. It increases at a rate of 10-15% per year and has been doing so for many years.

Why do I say all this? My point is that the dividing line between negligence and misadventure has become very blurred in recent years and the balance shifts more and more towards a presumption of negligence. My reading of the AAIB report in this case says to me that there was enormous doubt about how that screwdriver got actually got there. My surmise -- I could be wrong -- is that this award was made against the maintenance organisation for not having a tool control procedure in place and therefore being negligent.

Well, you could go through my practice or any other practice or hospital and you could find many equivalents of 'tool control procedures' which could and should be in place, but aren't. Mostly, no-one suffers. One day, though, a series of unfortunate coincidences may mean that someone does come to grief. Then, our procedures will be put under the spotlight and someone will say, in retrospect mind you, "Well, obviously this was an accident waiting to happen. You should have seen it and are negligent for not having done so."

As a professional you can't cover all the bases. You do your best, but in the end it isn't possible. The world is too complex. If you deal in a critical field, such as aviation maintenance or medicine, eventually something must go wrong and then everyone is quick to tut tut and point the finger at you for being negligent. It's a fact of life today.

But it makes me sigh and I don't think it makes for a better society.

Sometimes, a situation can be really, outrageously gross, but mostly sh*t just happens, as it seems to have done in this case. The problem is we have lost the knack of living with it.

S-Works

18th Oct 2006, 22:09

pistongone

18th Oct 2006, 22:16

QDM,
That was my point pretty much, only may i say slightly more eloquently made;) Has anyone realised, as i have, that the aircraft last visited the maintenance facility appx 2 MONTHS before the accident?? Surely a screwdriver rattling around after all those PRE-flight checks would have been found? (Report states last visit in November 02, accident January 5th 03). Zulu Alpha, page 3 para 3 of the report suggests "most" pilots carry a means of opening the panels, screwdriver, multi-tool or swiss army knife. It doesnt actualy say the pilot had a swiss army knife. So that is another question needing an answer.

halty

18th Oct 2006, 22:45

I had the privilege to co-own a yak 52 for a couple of years and it was a fantastic and capable aircraft but i was well aware of the dangers of loose articles within its confines, much to the amusement of other aircraft owners as i would go though the pre-flight ritual of slapping hell out of the fuselage
but i was somewhat shocked to find on picking up the yak from maintenance { maintenance company involved in this incident} that a jack point adapter had been left attached to the wing {among other problems}
so although as previously mentioned, the compensation wont bring the crew back, it may focus the fact that aircraft maintenance company's need to have a strict tool control system in place and not a back street garage policy!
no tool control and aviation do not mix.
condolences to the families involved

spekesoftly

18th Oct 2006, 23:00

It doesnt actualy say the pilot had a swiss army knife. So that is another question needing an answer.

Please go back and read the AAIB report - page 6, penultimate paragraph.

pistongone

18th Oct 2006, 23:16

Well i apologise for that one, i thought i had read the report, yet i missed that:uhoh: :uhoh: Sorry chaps. So accepting that this pilot was a fastidious and superlative aviator, and i dont doubt that for a minute, it proves that tge pre-flight must be ever more vigilant when intending to do an aerobatic sortie!

plussixpointfive

26th Oct 2006, 16:23

It is interesting to read from the various interested parties, how, with limited information & a lot of speculation, the discussion of facts have been taken out of context by some & then become distorted by heated debate which includes personal attacks on individuals resulting in incorrect conclusions.
Having attended the inquest & been allowed access to the police report & the court case. I am able to supply FACTS.
If anyone is interested in the FACTS & not the speculation I am able to supply all the correct information relating to this incident.

I would like to impart a few facts which may answer a few questions.

The screwdriver contained the DNA of at least six people, the DNA swab was taken from only one point on the handle of the screwdriver, this was from a scratch on one surface.
The screwdriver could not be retested because it had chemicals put on it for other tests. The only full DNA match was the pilot's, the next match was the operative who had lost the screwdriver with a possibility of about one in 50,000. Another match was with another maintenance opearative of about one in 11,000. The other matches were only partial matches with the other people tested.
It was never proven that the pilot "handled" the screwdriver.
Please bear in mind that the whole aircraft interior will have had the pilots DNA on it, this was an impact from 200mph, the impact blew the tail section 7 metres from the rest of the aircraft.
The pilot always used a swiss army knife screwdriver blade to open the fuel filler covers e.tc. This was found in the velcro pocket of his flying suit.
The pilot was not at the maintenance hangar at the time of the screwdriver going missing & had not delivered or collected the aircraft.
The maintenance operative admitted to losing a "Snap on" stubby screwdriver from a set he had purchased from a dealer. These tools are not available to the general public.
The owner of the maintenance company test flew the aircraft after its maintenance & signed it off. Unfortunately the paperwork could not be found.
The pilot & his wife ran an IT consultation company. The wife did all the administration & accounting while the pilot was the technical side of things. The wife could not run the company & therefore had no income. The company would have earned approx 2.0m to the owners retirement.In conclusion, The maintenance company left the screwdriver in the aircraft, which ultimately caused the crash. Whether or not you believe a military trained pilot would find a screwdriver in his aircraft, leave it there & then go flying is up to you.
Would you also be prepared to lose your wife or husband for £270,000.

The parents of the pilot & his brother (who was also a notable aerobatic pilot) are also both pilots & have access to this forum.

Any other information requested, will be supplied.

Thanks PSPF

Mixed Up

26th Oct 2006, 19:01

Whether or not you believe a military trained pilot would find a screwdriver in his aircraft, leave it there & then go flying is up to you.
Would you also be prepared to lose your wife or husband for £270,000.

The parents of the pilot & his brother (who was also a notable aerobatic pilot) are also both pilots & have access to this forum.

I can understand how this tragedy can be upsetting to you if the deceased were related or close friends (and I don't want to upset you or anyone else anymore), but you seem to want to express your opinion whilst telling us we cannot.

Where can we discuss this case, which affects us all, if not here?

Justiciar

26th Oct 2006, 19:51

So the judge did hear all the evidence and then made a decision. Anyone got a better way of dealing with these things?

QDMQDMQDM

26th Oct 2006, 19:59

In conclusion, The maintenance company left the screwdriver in the aircraft, which ultimately caused the crash. Whether or not you believe a military trained pilot would find a screwdriver in his aircraft, leave it there & then go flying is up to you.
Would you also be prepared to lose your wife or husband for £270,000.

I am no lawyer but this looks like pretty circumstantial evidence to me, which would be highly unlikely to hold up in a criminal, rather than a civil case.

No-one would want to lose their wife or husband for £270K, but that is completely not the issue and is a misleadingly emotive statement. The issue is one of negligence or not.

As Mixed UP says, you may be upset, but this is a legitimate subject for discussion and, as I said in my previous post, I speak as someone who has already been the subject of a negligence case and fully expect to be the subject of several more in the source of my career. We are facing an epidemic of negligence cases, often based on circumstantial evidence, and that is a worthy subject for debate.

QDM

Justiciar

26th Oct 2006, 20:22

epidemic of negligence cases

There is actually little evidence that this is the case. The "compensation culture" is something of a myth and certainly of late there has been an increasing robustness from the courts (in the < 1% which come to trial) in differentiating between true negligence and the hazards of life which everyone is expected to weather. Of course, where the individual relies upon expert skills (doctor, lawyer) the scope for complaint is much greater. But perhaps we are getting off the subject.

smarthawke

26th Oct 2006, 20:23

Thank you plussixpointfive for providing some more facts to the thread perhaps people will respect the evidence.

QDMQDMQDM

26th Oct 2006, 21:18

Justiciar,

You are speaking absolute garbage when you assert that compensation claims are not rising. As the following article shows, in 2002 negligence claims against the NHS had risen by 50% in 3 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1948135.stm

My professional subscription as a GP continues to rise at 10-15% per year. Given that the medical defence societies are mutuals (or whatever non-profit thingy they are), why are the subs increasing, if not increasing liability?

I make major decisions every day. I do the best I can, but I know absolutely that at some point I will face a claim as a result of what may quite possibly have been a simple error of judgement or may have been simply misadventure. My job is enormously risky and when you take risk, which I have to do, it sometimes goes wrong.

The one case I have been sued for so far (I was actually only a minor part of it) was settled out of court recently for a substantial sum. I am in no doubt whatsoever that neither I nor my colleagues were negligent. The barrister agreed, but said the courts were too unpredictable these days, tended to err on the side of the plaintiff, the risk was therefore too high and it had to be settled.

Sh*t happens and it isn't always anyone's fault. If you honestly think the courts are capable of consistently recognising and distinguishing that fact then you are either naive or stupid.

Sure, I don't know the precise details of this case, but I can tell you that if you come and dissect my GP surgery or any other GP surgery or hospital or clinic in the UK you can find thousands of potential equivalents to 'poor tool control procedures' which are a disaster waiting to happen. Only problem is we won't know about most of them until something awful happens and then everyone will say: "Well, it was bleedin obvious, wasn't it?"

The retrospectoscope is a wonderful thing. Ask the armed coppers who were told a suspect was coming out of a pub with a sawn-off shotgun and ended up shooting a bloke holding a chair leg covered by a blanket.

QDM

Mixed Up

26th Oct 2006, 22:16

So the judge did hear all the evidence and then made a decision.

So a shark heard a couple of bickering parties and legally settled a spat.

Isn't that the truth?

Justiciar

26th Oct 2006, 22:26

Sh*t happens and it isn't always anyone's fault. If you honestly think the courts are capable of consistently recognising and distinguishing that fact then you are either naive or stupid.

I am not sure I understand why part of the strength of your argument lies in crude insults directed at your opponent in the discussion. Do not think for one moment that you are the only one with insight or knowledge in this area nor that your perspective is the only one. I did not, as must be very obvious if you care to read my post properly, refer exclusively or mainly to the NHS. Indeed, the value and cost of claims may well be rising there. However, overall the numbers of negligence claims are not significantly rising, though the legal costs in many cases have risen since the government abolished legal aid and claimant's solicitors can recover from the opponent the success fee, which can be as high as 100% in a no win no fee case.

Sh*t happens does it? Well yes it does and sometimes it is no one's fault, but often it is. The "sh*t happens" argument is great until the sh*t happens to you, where upon it suddenly is different and you claim is then of course fully justified. I deal with civil, employment and other claims day in day out and I don't need you to tell me the weaknesses of the court system, but I don't believe that the courts are manned entirely by idiot judges as you appear to do.

What exactly is your alternative solution? Short of simply saying no one can ever sue for negligence, what are you proposing? Strangely, I am not aware of any jurisdiction which has solved this problem, including those that have gone the no fault compensation route, but perhap you know something we don't.

Part of the problem with the professions historically (including my own) is that they simply closed ranks at the first hint of a claim against a fellow professional. Standards were sometimes very poor but no one was man enough to admit it. Now, I admit that I haven't done clinical negligence for some years, but my general experience that there were very few mercenary claimants but alot of very distressed people who had suffered some fairly catastrophic injuries arising from their medical treatment. Sometimes being open would have avoided a claim but the health athorities at the time chose not to be. I suspect that things are different now.

if you come and dissect my GP surgery or any other GP surgery or hospital or clinic in the UK you can find thousands of potential equivalents to 'poor tool control procedures' which are a disaster waiting to happen

... and I could take you to factories, garages, building sites where there are breaches of the H & S regulations on a daily and continuing basis. So, what exactly is your point? Do we ignore them until someone falls to his death or has part of his anatomy crushed by something ? Just as my practice has reduced the claims against it (and our PI premium, by the way) by proper work control, training and file auditing why should GP surgeries not do the same? If you do indeed have a "disaster waiting to happen" in your surgery then when it does happen you bl**dy well deserve to be sued, and if your PI premiums go up as a result you have no one to blame but yourself. I am at a loss to understand why you appear to think that risk management does not apply in the medical field as it does every where else.

So a shark heard a couple of bickering parties and legally settled a spat.

Mied Up: Hopefully you will never be in the position of the widow in this case. Had you ever lost a loved one in a tragic and possibly avoidable accident you might have been less inclined to make such a flippant and disparaging comment

QDMQDMQDM

27th Oct 2006, 10:58

I am at a loss to understand why you appear to think that risk management does not apply in the medical field as it does every where else.

Of course we try to reduce risk all the time. My point is that it is completely impossible to eliminate it and that we get sued now almost as a matter of course when anything goes wrong. The courts are increasingly sympathetic to the plaintiff and the idea of a simple mistake or error of judgement seems to have gone out of the window.

I make any number of significant decisions a day, of which no doubt some could be better. I think I am a reasonably competent GP, but I think eventually I will get sued again. Do I think I'm being negligent on a daily basis? No. Do I think all claims against me will therefore be defensible? No. That's why I'm cynical about negligence cases. I could sit with you and go through the medical notes of patients I have seen in the last year and identify a number of potential lawsuits which have not yet happened. So could any GP.

I don't say no-one is ever negligent, but as a professional who faces this reality all the time, I am fatalistic. And cynical. I don't know the precise details in this case, but I know something similar could probably happen in any GP surgery or hospital in the UK.

Flying aerobatics is a dangerous business. My aviation life insurance doesn't cover it.

stiknruda

27th Oct 2006, 13:16

QDM wrote:

Flying aerobatics is a dangerous business. My aviation life insurance doesn't cover it.

Can you justify with evidence your rather broad brush statement? Just because the insurer perceives aeros as more dangerous is probably testament to his poor understanding of what is actually involved.

I am sure that CFIT and disorientation through inadvertent entry to IMC kills more pilots each year than a botched loop.

How many were killed in aviation accidents (specifically GA) during the year that Tony speared in - how many of the others that stoofed were involved in aerobatics?

QDMQDMQDM

28th Oct 2006, 19:59

stik,

I don't know the statistics and insurance is a blunt instrument, but neither my life insurance nor my travel insurance covers aerobatics. And aerobatic pilots wear parachutes, while the rest of us don't, which tells us something too. There may not be many accidents per year in aerobatic flight, but there aren't, proportionately, many aerobatic hours flown either.

The thing which irritates me about this thread, and why I finally decided to get involved, is the inability to divorce political correctness from an important discussion about the ins and outs of negligence, compensation and liability. I am also irritated by people like plussixpointfive, who obviously know more than most of us on this case, but therefore feel that the great unwashed has no right to comment. We still live in a free society, just, and this is a really important subject for all of us.

The standard of proof required in civil cases is far lower than in criminal cases, the cases in negligence proceedings are often heart-rending, as in this one, and the only entity to directly suffer financially is generally an insurance organisation. All good reasons to find in favour of the plaintiff. Further, with the rise of no-win no-fee, there is little reason for a potential plaintiff not to fire out a series of writs like a cluster bombload from an F16.

I'm not even saying that a finding of negligence in this case was necessarily unjustified, and I presume it was fundamentally because they didn't account for their tools, but again I don't know. What I am saying is that society is now in a situation where professionals like me, who practice in a dangerous sphere, but who do their job reasonably competently, view it as inevitable they will get sued. I already have been. I no doubt will be again. I feel there is only a limited set of precautions I can take to avoid it. You may think that's a good thing. I think it says there is something wrong and that we are entering open season on professionals.

Like I say, sh*t happens, but we've lost the knack of learning to live with it. Someone else so often has to be to blame, and that's sad.

QDM

Justiciar

28th Oct 2006, 21:37

with the rise of no-win no-fee, there is little reason for a potential plaintiff not to fire out a series of writs like a cluster bombload from an F16.

As a Claimant, you have to be insured against loosing, which means you can only get insurance if there is a reasonable prospect of success - solicitors who loose lots of cases generally stop being offered the insurance for their clients
No solicitor will take a hopeless case or the one which he does not think stands much chance, since bringing a case costs alot of money, including expensive medical reports which the claimant's solicitor pays up front
If anything, the number of cases taken under no win-no fee has decreased as compared with a few years ago since any lawyer who is not ruthless in his selection of cases will go bankrupt quite soon!

We generally carry 10s of £1,000s in disbursements for our personal injury clients at any one time. Money is often paid out for the client years before it is recovered. We cannot afford to run dodgy cases with the risk of not getting repaid.

Clinical negligence is not done under no win, no fee. These cases are run by the small number of firms who still have a legal aid contract for this type of work. They are audited on success and failure. To many hopeless cases lost means loss of the contract.

By the way, we no longer have writs :{

shortstripper

28th Oct 2006, 22:19

Farming is in a ****e state at the moment, but listening to all this guff about the work of lawyers and doctors .... I think I'll stick to it :\

Funny thing though, I recently had an HSE inspection where they chastised me for for having to climb three rungs of a ladder to turn a tap each day, but had no comment on me having to seperate a horny 900 kg bull from a cow on heat :eek: ... go figure!!!

SS

Mixed Up

29th Oct 2006, 18:53

Quote:
So a shark heard a couple of bickering parties and legally settled a spat.
Mied Up: Hopefully you will never be in the position of the widow in this case. Had you ever lost a loved one in a tragic and possibly avoidable accident you might have been less inclined to make such a flippant and disparaging comment

If I recall correctly, a solicitor, and p/t Employment Tribunal Chairman, literally told me of the purpose of the ET: "It's got nothing to do with finding the truth; it's about settling a spat between two bickering parties". I guess a civil court is similarly viewed by solicitors, and that is the view I was expressing. I have another couple of solicitor friends (decent people) who have recently expressed to me dismay at the legal system/culture.

Most solicitors are not sharks, but the legal profession does seem to attract a higher percentage of them than other professions - and that is my personal experience.

I expressed my view of the parties earlier, when I said: It's a tragic accident and I feel for all involved (except the legal sharks).

I guess we'll never really know how much the legal teams for the two parties received, but I bet they did nicely out of it.

NutLoose

29th Oct 2006, 21:47

It's negligent to design a plane so that something can transit from the passenger space to somewhere where it matters.

Why do people design them in that way?

If you ever managed to designed a perfect safe and totally bulletproof aircraft it would never get off the ground period........... nothing is or will ever be 100 % safe.

I read the report when it came out and thought tragic as it may seem, the pilot may of indeed borrowed the Screwdriver to use before his flight, this could never be proved and I do not wish to cast dispersions on his character as no one will ever know the truth.

But I would say please, imagine how the poor Trainee Mechanic must feel..... he had been totally honest, came forward and honestly told the truth that he was missing a similar screwdriver. This as said could have been borrowed without his knowledge and caused the demise of both the aircraft and pilot................... but without it being clear cut if the pilot borrowed this tool, he has to live with this for the rest of his life.

He could have simply lied, but he didn't and for that I respect him wholeheartidly.

Myself I have been in a position where I have seen pilots simply walk in and "help themselves " to the contents of my toolkit as if it is their God given right...... I have had severe words over the years with many, I myself operate a self disipline when working on Aircraft in that I check my tools at the end of each Job to ensure I have them all back where they should be in my tool kit...

Perhaps this accident as tragic as it may have been will bring a greater awareness to both pilots and engineers as to proper tool control.

NutLoose

29th Oct 2006, 21:58

stik,

I'm not even saying that a finding of negligence in this case was necessarily unjustified, and I presume it was fundamentally because they didn't account for their tools, but again I don't know.

QDM

The problem I have with this line is the fact that it infers correct tool control was not possibly in place, If the Aircraft had been worked on prior to the incident and a tool check had been carried out and all tools where accounted for, that would not prevent someone simply walking in and borrowing a tool without any of the owners knowledge in a maintenance facility.. where people are working on different aircraft you would check your tools before moving on to the next aircraft. now in a perfect world this would be ideal, but if someone needing a screwdriver perfectly innocently walked in and picked one up from someones kit to open or close a panel for a moment after the relevent checks had been carried out a tragedy is in the making and this is something that no one could forsee or prevent.................... again I am not making assumptions, but just putting a scenario before you all that could show how easy it would be.

QDMQDMQDM

10th Nov 2006, 09:47

Yak UK has issued a statement, denying liability:

http://www.pilotweb.aero/content/articles/view_article.aspx?id=3435

Mixed Up

11th Nov 2006, 08:25

Justiciar:

So the judge did hear all the evidence and then made a decision.

So this was not the case.

S-Works

11th Nov 2006, 09:43

Back to the comments about lawyers being the only people that make money in these circumstances. Cheaper for the insurance company to settle without acceptance of blame than feed the lawyers for a long and drawn out trial................

jonkil

11th Nov 2006, 14:12

This Country (Ireland) and to a lesser degree, the UK is becoming more and more like the USA.
Take a trip down any "interstate" in the USA and you are bombarded by NO WIN-NO FEE billboards for lawyers that don't give a hoot about the consequences of their actions on third parties.... all they care about is a quick buck. Ireland has become a real "claim culture" in the past decade and it is almost completely impossible to insure yourself against it.
Yes, there may be a case to answer for for negligence that was apparent, but to follow the letter to the law, cross each t, dot each i & to follow health and safety to the letter of the law will wreck any business.
I have been audited by H&S and it became so apparent that I was leaving myself open for some shark of a lawyer to hit me big time that I dont offer maintenance at all any more.
The fact of the matter is that the guy is dead, don't matter how much we rabbit on about it, don't matter about any finincial settlement... he isn't coming back.................. and that my friends is it in a nutshell.
We aint here for a long time, we're here for a good time... chill and get on with it.

Zulu Alpha

11th Nov 2006, 18:36

From the latest reports this settlement looks like one insurance company not wanting to pay for a trial. The damages are relatively small vs the potential earnings of the deceased. The insurance company had a choice between pay £270,000 or risk paying £2+M. Only they know why they chose the option they did.

As YAK UK have said they deny liability and as it was never taken to a court of law then we do not have a 'verdict' only individual opinions. My view for what its worth is that there are very tenuous links to negligence by YAK UK.

One question that has been raised is whether there should be no win no fee cases. I used to be of the opinion that this was a bad idea as it encouraged ambulance chasing like in the US. However, I have changed my mind after talking with my Uncle who is a judge and my Grandfather who was a master. Their view is that before no win no fee was allowed in the UK there were many large organisations (including insurance companies) who could easily take ordinary middle income people like me and you to the point of bankruptcy rather than settle. The less well off got legal aid but not anyone with a reasonable income. Therefore people like you and me had really no option other than settling for reduced payouts just because we could not risk the potential financial costs of a court case. No win no fee does not automatically mean frivolous cases because no Solicitor or Barrister would take a hopeless case.

One safeguard we have in the UK is that we do not have punitive damages. They have these in the US, they are effectively a punishment added on top of the actual loss of the victim. These can be large if negligence is proved and can exceed the actual financial loss. This payout does encourage more speculative cases. My understanding is that we do not have this in the UK so do not have as many speculative cases as the US.

I am sure there are Solicitors and Barristers on the forum. perhaps they would like to comment.

plussixpointfive

12th Nov 2006, 10:40

Isn't it predictable that even a respected publication like Pilot magazine can print a statement with the same accuracy as a tabloid newspaper.

The article on pilotweb, The statement says the accident occourred in December 2002, The crash actually occourred on January 5th 2003.

The statement also quotes the AAIB as stating that the pilot was the last person to "handle" the screwdriver. The quote from the report is reproduced below.

The loose article found in G-YAKW was a short-handled flat-bladed screwdriver. Although the most likely source of the screwdriver was during maintenance in November 2002, what is not known and could not be established is how the screwdriver found its way into the aircraft. Screwdrivers of this type are used by pilots to carry out normal routine servicing on the aircraft. All the other pilots who flew the aircraft from November 2002 however were able to account for their tools used for this purpose, and the 'Swiss Army' knife normally used by the pilot involved in the accident was recovered. DNA testing however, showed that the pilot had come into contact with the screwdriver at some point prior to the accident but it could not be established when or how this occurred.

For the record, please also note that the pilot killed in the crash had not visited Yak UK Ltd for any reason including delivering or collecting the aircraft.

The trainee who lost the screwdriver told the inquest that the last time he had seen the screwdriver was to open a tin of paint.

QDMQDMQDM

12th Nov 2006, 16:45

plussixpointfive,

You have already declared a close interest in this case, for which you are to be applauded, but one cannot help feeling your partiality is clouding your objectivity.

The statement says this:

DNA tests presented at the inquest by the AAIB firmly established that the pilot had been the last person to handle the screwdriver before it jammed the controls. No evidence was ever presented in the proceedings to suggest otherwise.

You just said:

The statement also quotes the AAIB as stating that the pilot was the last person to "handle" the screwdriver. The quote from the report is reproduced below.(Quote from the AAIB report follows)

The statement, as I quoted above, refers to DNA tests presented at the inquest by the AAIB, not the AAIB report. I wasn't there -- maybe you were -- but evidence at an inquest can be more extensive than an accident report or questioning by the coroner may bring out different aspects.

It's clear that you are out to rubbish Yak UK and their position because you think they are firmly in the wrong and responsible through their negligence for the death of your friend, colleague or relative, and I think the rest of us need to keep that in mind when reading your posts.

From my personal knowledge, I know that there can be a large gap between what an insurance organisation thinks is worth the risk of defending and barn door negligence.

This is a tragedy, but brings out really important issues with regard to risk and blame in society today and for that reason it is worth discussing here. I'm glad it has been.

QDM

Mixed Up

12th Nov 2006, 17:39

plussixpointfive:

I really don't see that you are making any point, merely posting one little bit of "evidence" that adds little or nothing to the totality of the story, and that simply invites others (and me) to respond with equallly valid "evidence". We are perfectly able to read and comprehend an entire AAIB report and make up our minds based upon the evidence it presents.

Please can someone tell us the actual verdict of the inquest? (In less than 5 words, e.g. "death by misadventure".)

Justiciar

12th Nov 2006, 18:02

I am not quite sure where this thread is now going :confused:

Yes I was wrong in assuming that the award from the High Court was after the case was tried. However, it seems to have been settled at some point either during or shrotly before trial. The insurers clearly took a view about the strength or otherwise of their case. In my experience insurers do not rush to settle claims of this sort. They will have considered all the factors, including the strength and reliability of their own witnesses before settling.

As I asked at the end of October, when this thread was last live, does anyone have a better way of dealing with these things?

QDMQDMQDM

12th Nov 2006, 19:16

Justiciar,

You make a good point: how could it be dealt with better? Probably, it couldn't be. The system works, but society has changed a lot and is more querulous than it used to be.

The point is that a reflex these days is to sue a professional if anything goes wrong: what the hell, you might get something, so give it a go!

Liability insurance for medics in Europe is a tiny fraction of what it is here. People have a different attitude to life and they don't always think someone is to blame.

Personally, I don't like the way British society is going in so many aspects and this is just one of them, but quite symptomatic of the whole.

QDM

plussixpointfive

13th Nov 2006, 06:41

Yes you are correct, quoting small extracts from reports, is getting us nowhere. So lets approach it from a slightly different angle.

Yak UK have made sure they have never admitted any liability for the accident, & by posting the statement in pilot magazine, have re -opened this debate.

So what about responsibility.

Lets assume for a moment that no employee left the screwdriver in the aircraft. This means that a third party did take the screwdriver(we know it wasn't the dead pilot as he was not at the facility). What sort of aircraft maintenance operation has such lax security in place so as to allow someone to wander around unescorted and take a screwdriver from a toolbox. Tools and other equipment are expensive, no one can afford to keep losing items in this way. This also raises other important security issues if people have unauthorised access to aircraft.

Yak UK have thus blamed the pilot for being the last person to handle the screwdriver, as this is a pilots forum, let me ask you a question:-

After your aircraft arrives back after recent maintenance, you find an almost new & expensive screwdriver in your aircraft. What would you do with it?

I still maintain that Yak UK Ltd, whilst denying liability, are still in some way responsible for this accident.

I am also quite sure that, to ensure customer confidence, they have now got an almost military tool control system, security to stop unauthorised access to the aircraft and workshops, & a vigorous aircraft inspection programme.

pspf

QDMQDMQDM

13th Nov 2006, 11:44

Yak UK have thus blamed the pilot for being the last person to handle the screwdriver, as this is a pilots forum, let me ask you a question:-

After your aircraft arrives back after recent maintenance, you find an almost new & expensive screwdriver in your aircraft. What would you do with it?

I still maintain that Yak UK Ltd, whilst denying liability, are still in some way responsible for this accident.

I'll answer the question. I would either:

1. Ask whose it was and take it back to the maintenance facility. If it turned out to to be theirs and had been left behind at a recent maintenance check, I would expect suitable expressions of horror, abject apology and promises to put their tool control system right. If I didn't get that, I would be tempted to report to the CAA.

2. Say 'Oh, that's nice, here's a shiny screwdriver and use it henceforth for my pre-flight inspections.

If I opted for the second course of action and suffered a control jam as a result of my then leaving the screwdriver in the aircraft I would reckon it was my own fault and would not sue the maintenance organisation, nor would I expect my estate to do so. It seems only natural that following the second course transfers all responsibility to the person who pockets the screwdriver. Doesn't it?

plussixpointfive

13th Nov 2006, 12:49

Thanks for your honest reply, It is exactly the answer I would expect from all pilots.

I am sure the majority of pilots would be incensed that an item had been left in their aircraft, & would have made sure it wasn't left in the aircraft.

I believe this to be true in this case. Alas we will never know exactly what happened, All we do know is that it is a great tragedy which cost the lives of two brilliant pilots & must never happen again.

Thanks for all the discussion.

pspf.

S-Works

13th Nov 2006, 13:32

It must not happen again, but it will, nothing is as certian as death and taxes. We just have a responsibility to learn and move on so that those that died have left something behind.

Plussix, you are emotionally involved and will always maintain that Yak UK were at fault as it will help you come to terms with the loss. We all deal with loss in our own way I guess. Personally I think there are so many grey areas in this case that I would not try and blame anyone but learn from it which I suspect a number of people will have done so. Yak pilots will be extra vigilant in pre flight checks and the maintanance organisations might just sharpen up as well. So as I said a senseless loss may help those that come after to prevent the same happening again. A worthwhile legacy?

As far as the screwdriver was concerned I would have been in the camp that if I found it in my aircraft I would have kept it. I found a spanner on the top of my engine once and it now sits in my tool box.

IO540

13th Nov 2006, 13:57

What sort of aircraft maintenance operation has such lax security in place so as to allow someone to wander around unescorted and take a screwdriver from a toolbox

That comment, if I may say so, is unreal. This is maintenance of general aviation aircraft, not maintenance of US$1BN (or whatever the price tag is) super secret super stealthy B2 bombers.

Passers-by nicking stuff (tools, headsets, even avionics) out of open hangars, and from parked aircraft, is a relatively common occurrence, just as stealing laptops and other valuables out of checked baggage is absolutely routine everyday occurence at major (and supposedly very secure) international airports.

The only way to prevent this happening would be to have military-style security around everything. Not possible.

Justiciar

13th Nov 2006, 14:01

You make a good point: how could it be dealt with better? Probably, it couldn't be. The system works, but society has changed a lot and is more querulous than it used to be.

The point is that a reflex these days is to sue a professional if anything goes wrong: what the hell, you might get something, so give it a go!

Liability insurance for medics in Europe is a tiny fraction of what it is here. People have a different attitude to life and they don't always think someone is to blame.

Personally, I don't like the way British society is going in so many aspects and this is just one of them, but quite symptomatic of the whole.

QDMQDMQDM

Despite our previous exchange, I find myself agreeing with just about every word of your statement. From my very limited knowledge of the continental systems I believe that damages are generally lower, the criminal law is more heavily involved in negligent acts causing death and the civil claim is often dealt with at the same time (the parti civil can appear and be represented in a criminal trial in France, for example)

Mixed Up

13th Nov 2006, 15:30

Plussixpontfive:

Alas we will never know exactly what happened

That's what really bothers me about the pay-out.

QDMQDMQDM

17th Nov 2006, 11:18

I will leave this thread alone soon, but just to reiterate my point that there is a strong theme of liability madness in the UK, because it is very important:

Today, a soldier was awarded £370K in damages for developing post-traumatic stress disorder after seeing a colleague have his arm blown off by a faulty rocket launcher in Iraq. Well, I'm sorry, but you join up to play with big, nasty boy's toys and sh*t like that happens.

And then read this story about the HSE and its persecution of an individual and groan for our country:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1950275,00.html

We need to guard against this kind of thing in aviation, or at least warn against it and ask people to think. That's why this forum and 'the other place' are so important.

QDM

IO540

17th Nov 2006, 12:03

The HSE will do this, and what does anybody expect? I mean, who thinks that an HSE employee (salary, pension) is going to look at a case and say "no, this is silly, let's focus on something real" and walk away from it? Since when did turkeys vote for xmas?

The moment you create an agency, you have to expect them to do the assigned job.

If you create an agency to check the thickness of chocolate bar wrappers, and enforce this to lie between 20 and 50 microns, they will do exactly that. In the UK (especially in the UK) there is be near unlimited numbers of applicants for a patently stupid and pointless job like that.

The real problem is the idiots who we have in politics, who create these agencies and let them run without proper oversight.

In some ways, I am not suprised aviation is so litigious. Take Lycoming. They make several thousand defective IO360 and IO540 crankshafts. Some of these break, causing a number of deaths and a huge amount of hassle for owners. The worst batches (e.g. those which would probably snap in the first 50 hours) got recalled and Lyco paid for the engine removal, opening, etc. Now, they have recalled all the rest, made 1997-2002, about 5000 of them. This is now an FAA AD and (I guess) will be a CAA AD too, if it isn't already. Mandatory replacement within 12 years of manufacture. Lyco, in their infinite corporate kindness :yuk: , are offering to sell you a new crank for a mere USD 2000 (a discount of about USD 10000) but you have to pay for the engine work, about £ 7000 if done in the UK. Also, this very kind discount crank offer is valid for only about 2 more years (making a blatent joke of the 12 year AD time limit). People like this should be sued in a class action and made to pay. Unfortunately, they have been very clever, and they offer to replace the crank FOC if you use them for your next engine overhaul (which has to be done within 12 years anyway, as a lot of "on condition" operators on G-reg know rather well ;) ) and this gives them pretty good protection from a class action. The fact that not many owners use Lyco for zero-time overhauls (because Lyco's QA is the pits and everybody knows it, and the "zero-time" engine you get back can be made up of a bucket of secondhand parts of an unlimited age) is irrelevant to the legal position. In this business, so many vendors are such crooks, and everybody knows it, that they don't really care anymore what anybody thinks - because anybody determined will just sue and they do a settlement, and the plaintiff signs an NDA so nobody finds out what deal was done. :yuk:

pistongone

17th Nov 2006, 15:04

Well said QDM,
that was my exact point five whole pages of comments previously!! I was not surprised at all by the Guardian(It had to be i suppose) article on the HSE! In our business we do what the HSE require untill they are gone and then get on with the business of making money! If every rule, regulation, recommendation etc, that these people issue were followed to the letter, then the country would grind to a halt today! The real concern is that SOME of these Reg's are warranted, but they are hiden under a load of useless eddicts designed to do nothing more than create work for otherwise unemployable Hitlers! What i have great trouble with understanding is where do they find these people? Judging by the comments on this forum, all sane people seem to agree the majority of these rules are plain daft. Yet the ruling Elite of this land seem to think otherwise:ugh: :ugh:
Beam me up Scotty:sad: