What's gone wrong at the AAIB ?
The UK Air Accident Investigation Branch has for over 100 years enjoyed an unrivalled reputation for meticulous attention to detail in its accident investigations.
Should anyone doubt that, I'd recommend getting hold of a copy of the commemorative history that it published in 2015 to mark its centenary.
So why does an organisation that prides itself on accuracy have such a g*d-awful website that's riddled with errors ?
One favourite theme seems to be mis-identifying the aircraft involved in an accident by getting the tail number wrong (often, in such cases, that of a completely different aircraft). While we can be confident that AAIB investigators know the difference between, for example, a BAe146 and a Dash-7, or between a Shorts 360 and a Seneca, that's not the impression given by the website.
Another favourite is quoting a nonsensical aircraft type. While it's not too difficult to deduce what an "L-832" or a "Bell 22B" are supposed to be, others (for example a "Beat", or an "S310", etc) are a bit more of a challenge. Engines aren't immune, either - who knew that the O-320 was built by de Havilland, or that the M-14 radial is a turboprop ?
Even the dates shown on the website for accidents/incidents don't always correspond to when the events actually happened. While most of the discrepancies are only a day or so out, some are off by months or even years.
And lest we should think that all the howlers are trivial, serious researchers and aviation safety analysts can never be sure that a search for all the accidents for a given aircraft type will return a complete dataset. For example a search for Super Puma events fails to return at least two accidents, and yet they can be found by searching on date or tail number.
I know from conversations with AAIB's previous Chief Inspector that he was keen to remedy the deficiencies in the website, but I understand that following his sudden departure last year his successor is ex-military, so it may be that the concept of putting accurate information into the public domain isn't something that the new regime is familiar with, which is a pity.
That's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the fact that courteous offers of help (pro bono) to sort out some of the worst howlers don't get a response, or even an acknowledgement, from Farnborough.