Genghis the Engineer

I'm afraid that many years of dealing with British aviation authorities tends to make me believe much more consistently in the cock-up theory than the conspiracy.

G

Heliport

Genghis
You could be right. But I suspect that some contributors to this thread know more about what was in the confidential draft report than they're letting on.

The helicopter world is a small one.

Fair Flair

Thanks to the Flying Lawyer for providing the info on the Civil Aviation Regulations.

Presumably Regulation 12 is covered in the draft report, and although a little late, Regulation 13 has been adhered to. So that seems to leave only Regulation 14 as the bone of contention, which many of the above correspondents have been suggesting.

Maybe its time to get the media involved, after all this has a high 'human interest' factor, which would make good copy.

Genghis the Engineer

FF, I'd recommend not doing so until they've had every opportunity from polite requests to make a response. Getting the press involved in that way is a last resort and will lose any goodwell you have have started with.

Heliport, I'm sure they do, but I've seen no sign that anybody who has knowledge, feels there's a good reason for the delay. Hence my favouring the "cock-up" theory.

G

Hoverman

Fair Flair
Thanks for your support
Reg 12 has been complied with.
Reg 13 hasn't yet if I've understood it properly. I think 'publish' means formally publish the report, not just sending out a draft report to limited numbers in confidential conditions.
Reg 14 is the sticking point.

Genghis
Shame you can't read between the lines, but thanks all the same for your support for the idea of emailing the AAIB to ask when the report will be published.

Fair Flair

I have received a response to my email from Jeremy Barnett.

He says that responsibility for publication of the report has been passed to Mr Ken Smart, Chief Inspector of Air Accidents. Apparently Mr Smart will respond to me soon, but no timescales were given.

Ghengis - despite your reservations about contacting the media, I think we are running out of options. Unless someone with appropriate authority/knowledge can tell us why the report is delayed, and provide us with timescales of when it will be placed in the public domain, I can't think of any reasonable situation that explains the failure to publish.

To me, that means there is a possible compromise of safety issues, and that can 't be right.

Genghis the Engineer

I was reading between the lines, just couldn't see anything.

I think if it's in the hands of Ken Smart you'll hear quickly and he'll say something meaningful - that has certainly always been my impression of the man.

G

Hoverman

"I was reading between the lines, just couldn't see anything."
Old proverb "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Genghis
I don't know what your motive is for undermining this attempt to help a fellow pilot but what I've said on this thread is NOT guesswork and it's NOT speculation.
I know it's not just a cock-up.
I know the delay is caused by the CAA objecting to the report being published as per its draft form and trying to get it changed.
I know there's a big battle been going on between the CAA and the AAIB.
I know the CAA were worried about repercssions from the beginning.
I know the CAA was so concerned they had their own lawyers and an outside solicitor at Paul Kenward's trial because they were worried about what might come out.
I know that unless the AAIB safety recommendations are put into effect an accident like this could happen again with more people killed.
And my opinion is that saving other people from being killed is more important than the pride of the CAA.

If you don't know the facts and you're not CAA or ex-CAA please stop making silly uninformed comments. This is a serious matter. I believe the AAIB are straight and will dig their heels in for what's right but someone could be killed until the safety changes are made.

Genghis the Engineer

I am not trying to undermine anything or anybody, I was offering an opinion on general procedure having worked in the field, nothing more or less. I do know Ken Smart as a very professional man who cares deeply about safety and openness, which is why I said what I did in my last post.

I can't stop you going to the press, I am merely saying that I'd treat that as an absolute last resort because once you have, nobody is likely to tell you anything directly, and the intrusion of the press may further delay reporting. Your MP would be a much more sensible route because parliamentarians have a direct route to ask such questions, can't be ignored and have to be told the truth.

I have lost 4 friends or colleagues to separate air accidents - one of whom's aircraft is still in the Hangar at Farnborough, and care as deeply as anybody about safety. I have worked on 6 fatal accident investigations. Feel free to disagree with me, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of undermining what I fully appreciate are your genuine attempts to improve air safety.

G

Heliport

Genghis
I thought it was only a matter of time before somebody reacted to your posts, and I'm pleased Hoverman has done so in a restrained manner - more in frustration than anger I think.
For someone who said "I know nothing of the accident in question, I don't work for AAIB or CAA, and have not met any of the people affected by this tragic accident.", you've been remarkably reluctant to accept what people who do know say.

First you suggested that concerns on the part of the families might be holding things up. Possible, but unlikely in view of what Hoverman had already said. When it was pointed out the families were very anxious to have the report published, you suggested a second possibility - 'new facts arising at a late stage'.

When it was pointed out that the families had not been given any explanation of that sort, you put forward your 'cock-up' theory.
I'm still trying to work out the logic of saying "I've seen no sign that anybody who has knowledge, feels there's a good reason for the delay. Hence my favouring the "cock-up" theory." Isn't the point that people with "knowledge" say there is a bad reason?

You say that you did read between the lines but didn't see anything. I don't doubt what you say, but you must be the only one.

You say you were offering an opinion on "general procedure", but this is not a "general" situation. Those who do know what's been going on say the draft report is critical of the CAA, the recommendations relate to the CAA, and it's the CAA that's holding things up.

One thing has been very clear throughout this thread. Everyone trusts and respects the AAIB for it's independence, integrity and the excellent work it does. It's a reputation which must make the CAA just a little envious.

BTW, for what it's worth, I agree the MP route is probably more effective than the Press. I suspect emails from Rotorheads contributors will also help to keep up the pressure.

Genghis the Engineer

All things considered, I think it is better that I decline to post further on this topic. I sincerely hope that it is resolved sooner rather than later, and that despite specific objections to what I have said, my comments have been of some use.

G

Fair Flair

I've had a reply from Ken Smart, Chief Inspector of Air Accidents.

He says that the representation stage is now complete, and the report will be published very early in the New Year. He confirms that the bereaved families will receive a copy of the report in advance of the publication date.

Hoverman

Fantastic news!
The families will be pleased to get the report, and I hope they won't be disappointed when they read it.

Have the AAIB stuck to their guns?
Have the CAA achieved anything after almost a year of "representations"?

Watch this space!!

Heliport

Thank you to everyone who supported Hoverman's campaign by emailing the AAIB.

The Report into this accident is of importance not only to the families, but to anyone who flies an unmodified Hughes 300

Heliport

Fair Flair

Its absolutely right that the report will be of great interest and importance to a wider audience than the bereaved families, and a number of correspondents have made that point in their comments.

Unfortunately there is nothing that can change for those who have been bereaved, but I'm sure that they would take some small comfort in knowing that what happened to their loved ones would not be allowed to occur ever again.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I hope that whatever it takes to get to that situation will be implemented as a result of the AAIB investigation. Otherwise, presumably its just a matter of time until the next accident, and who will be able to come up with the answers then?

Lu Zuckerman

The adversarial relationship between the AAIB and the CAA exists between the FAA and the NTSB in the states. I was personally told the following by a senior NTSB investigator. In respect to an unnamed aircraft that had exhibited a very bad catastrophic safety record. The NTSB recommended the grounding of the fleet. The FAA refused. The investigator went on to say that if this aircraft type exhibited one more catastrophic failure they, the NTSB, would ram it down the throats of the FAA and force the repeal of the aircraft’s’ certification. Since that time there have been 6 or 7 such accidents and the FAA refuses to do anything about it. How would it be if the CAA were the certifying authority and the AAIB investigated all of the accidents?

Flying Lawyer

The AAIB has provided advance copies of its (final) Report to the parties involved. It will be published this Friday 21st Feb.

I've heard (unconfirmed) that the CAA will publish a statement the same day.

Tudor Owen