Kent Air Ambulance pilot cleared
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kent Air Ambulance pilot cleared
Online report
999 helicopter pilot cleared over death crash Feb 25 2004
A WOMAN has won a High Court battle to clear the name of her husband who died when his air ambulance helicopter smashed into power cables.
Following an inconclusive inquest into the crash, Linda Budden, 51, of Hollow Lane, Dormansland, went to Manchester High Court to prove her husband Graham had played no part in the accident which claimed his life and the lives of two paramedics in July 1998.
Mr Budden was 40 when the Kent Air Ambulance helicopter he was flying made a sudden turn and flew down a valley where it collided with an electricity cable. The helicopter smashed to the ground and exploded, leaving no evidence of the accident's cause.
An investigation by the Air Accident Investigation Board showed the accident was caused either by a mechanical fault or because Mr Budden had been deliberately low flying.
Mrs Budden said: "I took it to court to show that Graham acted in the way he did because there was something wrong. I did it for the children so they could feel proud of their dad."
During the case, no evidence emerged to support the low-flying theory.
Eye witnesses, who saw the helicopter on a regular basis, said it was behaving oddly and making strange sounds.
And expert witnesses said there were several possible aircraft malfunctions that could have caused the pilot to divert.
Describing the moment she learned of her husband's death, Mrs Budden said: "It was such a shock. We were watching the BBC nine o'clock news and we saw the Kent Air Ambulance come up. I was devastated and could not believe it. It was unusual he had not phoned to say he was running late. My children, then aged 13 and 16, were watching the television with me. A minute later the police turned up on the doorstep."
She celebrated last Wednesday's judgement with her children, Gemma, 21, and Kirk, 19, and said: "It has been a difficult six years for us. Not only losing a husband and a father to my two children but also having this element of doubt hanging over us over who was to blame for the accident. I don't know how to describe it. I am really relieved it is over."
A WOMAN has won a High Court battle to clear the name of her husband who died when his air ambulance helicopter smashed into power cables.
Following an inconclusive inquest into the crash, Linda Budden, 51, of Hollow Lane, Dormansland, went to Manchester High Court to prove her husband Graham had played no part in the accident which claimed his life and the lives of two paramedics in July 1998.
Mr Budden was 40 when the Kent Air Ambulance helicopter he was flying made a sudden turn and flew down a valley where it collided with an electricity cable. The helicopter smashed to the ground and exploded, leaving no evidence of the accident's cause.
An investigation by the Air Accident Investigation Board showed the accident was caused either by a mechanical fault or because Mr Budden had been deliberately low flying.
Mrs Budden said: "I took it to court to show that Graham acted in the way he did because there was something wrong. I did it for the children so they could feel proud of their dad."
During the case, no evidence emerged to support the low-flying theory.
Eye witnesses, who saw the helicopter on a regular basis, said it was behaving oddly and making strange sounds.
And expert witnesses said there were several possible aircraft malfunctions that could have caused the pilot to divert.
Describing the moment she learned of her husband's death, Mrs Budden said: "It was such a shock. We were watching the BBC nine o'clock news and we saw the Kent Air Ambulance come up. I was devastated and could not believe it. It was unusual he had not phoned to say he was running late. My children, then aged 13 and 16, were watching the television with me. A minute later the police turned up on the doorstep."
She celebrated last Wednesday's judgement with her children, Gemma, 21, and Kirk, 19, and said: "It has been a difficult six years for us. Not only losing a husband and a father to my two children but also having this element of doubt hanging over us over who was to blame for the accident. I don't know how to describe it. I am really relieved it is over."
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
Thanks for the post. I am curious to know what court case was taken to prove the pilot was not involved in low flying - was it some sort of judicial review of the coroner's verdict or of the AAIB report or what??
Thanks for the post. I am curious to know what court case was taken to prove the pilot was not involved in low flying - was it some sort of judicial review of the coroner's verdict or of the AAIB report or what??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't involved in the case. I came across the story while Googling for something else.
Link
That link doesn't seem to work at the moment. I think I copied it all, but you can check by going to 'Surrey online', and the East Grinstead section. (EG's on the Surrey/Kent border).
Link
That link doesn't seem to work at the moment. I think I copied it all, but you can check by going to 'Surrey online', and the East Grinstead section. (EG's on the Surrey/Kent border).
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 27th Feb 2004 at 06:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To date, I've found out the following:
The pilot's widow sued Kent Air Ambulance (in practice, its insurers) under employers' liability legislation, alleging the crash was caused by mechanical failure, and claiming damages for herself and on behalf of her children.
Kent AA/insurers denied the claim, arguing no evidence of mechanical failure so it must have been pilot error.
The lady won.
The case was heard at the High Court in Liverpool, not Manchester as per the report. (Venue changed day before the case started.)
I hope to find out more very soon, and shall post again when I do.
Tudor
The pilot's widow sued Kent Air Ambulance (in practice, its insurers) under employers' liability legislation, alleging the crash was caused by mechanical failure, and claiming damages for herself and on behalf of her children.
Kent AA/insurers denied the claim, arguing no evidence of mechanical failure so it must have been pilot error.
The lady won.
The case was heard at the High Court in Liverpool, not Manchester as per the report. (Venue changed day before the case started.)
I hope to find out more very soon, and shall post again when I do.
Tudor
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 2nd Mar 2004 at 19:53.
Flying Lawyer.
Not quite the case as you have put it.
The prosecution said that a mechanical problem had occurred to the aircraft which forced the pilot to have to fly up the valley.
The case for the defence was that a mechanical problem could not be ruled out, but that no matter what the mechanical problem was, it would not have forced the pilot to have to fly up the valley.
I believe the defence is trying to appeal the decision.
Not quite the case as you have put it.
The prosecution said that a mechanical problem had occurred to the aircraft which forced the pilot to have to fly up the valley.
The case for the defence was that a mechanical problem could not be ruled out, but that no matter what the mechanical problem was, it would not have forced the pilot to have to fly up the valley.
I believe the defence is trying to appeal the decision.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the correction, tbc.
I picked up the information from a CPL friend, not a lawyer, over a very enjoyable Sunday lunch with plenty of wine. He was flying and I wasn't, so the mistake is more likely to be mine than his.
I'm trying to get hold of a copy of the judge's decision and shall post a summary if/when I do.
=============
BTW, Rendezvous St Lucia again this year?
We tried Antigua - better beaches, but preferred St Lucia.
Tudor
I picked up the information from a CPL friend, not a lawyer, over a very enjoyable Sunday lunch with plenty of wine. He was flying and I wasn't, so the mistake is more likely to be mine than his.
I'm trying to get hold of a copy of the judge's decision and shall post a summary if/when I do.
=============
BTW, Rendezvous St Lucia again this year?
We tried Antigua - better beaches, but preferred St Lucia.
Tudor
Tudor,
It wasn't JJ was it?
The judge's 'hand down' runs to a considerable number of pages which having read once I am not keen to read again on the grounds that I would rather read the Sun newspaper as it is more in touch with reality.
That is a personal opinion you understand.
St Lucia was better than Barbados too - thinking of where to go this year and could try somewhere hot again.
Appearing on-line at a computer near you maybe!!
It wasn't JJ was it?
The judge's 'hand down' runs to a considerable number of pages which having read once I am not keen to read again on the grounds that I would rather read the Sun newspaper as it is more in touch with reality.
That is a personal opinion you understand.
St Lucia was better than Barbados too - thinking of where to go this year and could try somewhere hot again.
Appearing on-line at a computer near you maybe!!
Heliport,
I don't think tbc has gone mad...
I don't think tbc has gone mad...
