PPRuNe Forums


Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th Nov 2017, 21:05   #961 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 163
I notice in the full judgement test the Judge hurriedly skipped over the Scottish case where disclosure WAS ordered of the CVFDR.....mmmm too awkward to discuss I guess.
dsc810 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Nov 2017, 02:31   #962 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 61
Posts: 575
Scottish Law is not English Law. Legal decisions made in Scotland do not set a precedent in English Law, although the reverse does not always apply.
G0ULI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Nov 2017, 12:00   #963 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 198
FWIW, the Air, Rail and Marine AIBs recently agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chief Coroner of England and Wales:
Memorandum of Understanding between the AIBs and the Chief Coroner
OldLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Nov 2017, 21:07   #964 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
..I would point out that at least some of those killed or injured were parked in an area with temporary parking restrictions, erected just for the duration of the airshow. Hindsight is always 20/20 perfect vision, pity the parking restrictions were not thoroughly enforced.

They got killed because they parked in the wrong place? Thank you for pointing that out.
Pozidrive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Nov 2017, 21:38   #965 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 5,466
The parking restrictions were to do with ROAD traffic of course - not the idea that they were likely to be hit by an aircraft.................

No way round this one - pilot error - not deliberate but still a grim tale................
Heathrow Harry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Nov 2017, 22:03   #966 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 8
Not to be cynical, but if people were killed inside their cars while parked illegally next to an airshow, then it sounds like they were not unsuspecting and just passing by, if you do want to make that distinction.
Euclideanplane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th Nov 2017, 22:29   #967 (permalink)
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 73
Posts: 1,816
I think that you will find that some (if not all) of the fatalities of people in vehicles (including a motorcyclist) were simply driving along the highway or pausing at traffic light signals.
There were 'pedestrians' (including photographers - who might have included a motorcyclist and a cyclist) who were hanging around the road junction (where they knew they would have a view of the aerial activity).

Who were the victims?
G-CPTN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 07:52   #968 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,580
G-CPTN
That was certainly true of several fatalities on the way to a football match, but the videos clearly show parked vehicles, contrary to the airshow restrictions.
I haven't read what the accident report says on that aspect.
LeadSled is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 08:25   #969 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 866
During Clacton’s air show a lot of the side roads have traffic cones to prevent parking.
Jo public just picks them up and moves them out of the way and parks their vehicle. It would seem that paying for the designated parking is against their psyche. Trouble is the reasons for the cones is to allow access for fire trucks etc.
IcePack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 09:13   #970 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 7,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
That was certainly true of several fatalities on the way to a football match, but the videos clearly show parked vehicles, contrary to the airshow restrictions.
True, but irrelevant.

If parked vehicles were judged to be at risk, then the same would have applied to passing traffic and the road should (given 20:20 hindsight) have been completely closed.
DaveReidUK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 09:15   #971 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
"The Hunter pilot on the day had no criminal intent, no "mens rea", the guilty mind, effectively a prerequisite for criminal charges. If he made a mistake, it certainly would not have been intentional, who hasn't made a mistake flying, at some time or other. "

Criminal Intent is not necessary for a charge of manslaughter - it's the "reasonable care " that is important.... as in cases when Companies are charged due to deaths and injuries in the workplace
Rather more than that, there has to be a crime leading to the death/s. So gross negligence at the very least.
Dr Jekyll is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 12:09   #972 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,580
DavidReidUK,
Sadly, a piece of "risk management" decision making,that, on the day, proved inadequate. I can understand why a local authority would be reluctant to close a major road completely, but decide preventing parking, would be enough.
LeadSled is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 16:01   #973 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 664
So we are demanding that the area under an aerial display is sterilized of the public?
Expect then at next Farnborough Airshow, Farnborough and Aldershot evacuated and 5 mile ban on traffic perhaps!
It is impossible to mitigate all risk unless air shows are banned. Life can never be 100% safe, neither can we completely stop tragic occurrences like Shoreham happening occasionally.
cessnapete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 17:56   #974 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Age: 55
Posts: 85
Would those people showing a rather indifferent attitude to the deaths of 11 people, still have the same attitude if it was their family members?

Parking in an unauthorised area should not mean that, in the event of death, tough luck.
The Nip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 19:17   #975 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 664
The Nip
Ok tell us without draconian restrictions, how you would prevent people nearby, not spectators, from such an occurrence ever happening again.
Im not indifferent, pragmatic perhaps.
cessnapete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 20:04   #976 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 61
Parking in a prohibited area

Effectively turns you into a trespasser

Plenty of case law whether property owners owe trespassers a duty of care when the trespassers have been injured....
mrangryofwarlingham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 20:33   #977 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 61
Posts: 575
One of the victims was a chauffeur on his way to pick up a bride and take her to her wedding. Clearly he at least was just travelling perfectly legitimately along a public road with no intent of stopping to watch the air display. Therefore a completely innocent member of the public died as he went about his own business as a result of this incident. He was not trespassing, he was in a public place, and there is strong evidence to suggest that he was a completely innocent victim of circumstance. How many other people were similarly innocent and just happened to be travelling past the display? I would suggest the majority. Those parked up and outside their vehicles had a chance to make a run for it as events unfolded.

Easy answer to preventing similar incidents, ban all display flights over and in the vicinity of any inhabited or transit areas. I don't expect that anyone really wants that to happen.

Therefore it is probably best to leave it up to the organisers, pilots, and maintenance crews to make such displays as safe as possible in the knowledge that they will collectively and individually face the full force of the law if something goes wrong.

It may take only a couple of moments inattention or misjudgement to contribute to a tragedy, but I think the public expect and are entitled to expect display pilots to be at the top of their game and the best of the best. Standards that were singularly lacking in this case, in display planning, in aircraft maintenance, flight discipline and piloting skills.
G0ULI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 20:52   #978 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 5,959
There are two classes of victims in this case, those who had been going about their business and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The other class of victim is those who decided to avoid the safe areas provided for those who wanted to watch the air display, they had knowlage of the display and decided to take the risk of not being in a safe area.

The first category of victim should have full compensation, the second category of victims clearly had knowlage of the risks and decided to take that risk, this fact should be taken into account when compensation is awarded.
A and C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 21:42   #979 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 231
I live close to the scene and there were would have been few illegally parked vehicles.
The crash scene is close to and parallel to the main A27 road - at it's furthest point the crash scene is no more than about 10 metres from the road.
The crashing aircraft had strayed from its route or should simply not have been where it was when it crashed.
It's true there would have been nothing stopping people walking to the spot. I've done it myself in past; likewise there would be nothing stopping people going about their lawful business walking past on their way wherever.
Indeed I would have been doing nothing illegal had I decided to walk in the area on that particular day.
It is not those who happened to be where they were that are in any way at fault; indeed if anybody is.
gcal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 23:18   #980 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 7,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by A and C View Post
The other class of victim is those who decided to avoid the safe areas provided for those who wanted to watch the air display, they had knowlage of the display and decided to take the risk of not being in a safe area.
It's ridiculous to suggest that people who chose to watch a display from the public highway were knowingly putting themselves at more risk than paying spectators watching it from within the airfield boundary.

Would you reduce the compensation payable to the families of those killed at, say, Ramstein or Reno?
DaveReidUK is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 15:55.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1