Thanks for kind words,
Ambient Sheep and
111.
Treble one, you are of course fully entitled to suggest that AH should let this lie. But don’t forget, an inquest is waiting to investigate this tragedy again, so it’s not going to be allowed to lie.
The recent ‘Norfolk’ high court judgement about the helicopter crash addresses the question of Inquests and AAIB reports (see para 56 in particular).
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/forma...2016/2279.html
But anyway, I’m with
falcon900 when s/he says
IF evidence led in the trial contradicts or challenges the AAIB report, this needs to be bottomed out?
111, you do go on to ask some pertinent questions about when the potential CI occurred. The start point was covered more than once in trial evidence. It was referred to as ‘Point X’, and detailed by some witnesses as time 12:21:49.
Was it before he was too slow and too low entering the manoeuvre?
Yes, it was before he entered the manoeuvre. Too slow? Expert witnesses said 300K was sufficient. However, why the speed was low is important. It should - and could easily - have been higher. Why wasn’t it? And (height) too low? It was not alleged at trial that he was too low entering the manoeuvre.
Was it before he failed to rech (sic) his gate height?
Yes. But the question there is why the aircraft was so low on energy. There was some strange flying and a lot of energy destroyed. Why?
Was it before he failed to recognise this and failed to abandon the manoeuvre?]
Yes - but why did he not recognise it? Over the apex little was done, either correctly or incorrectly. The aircraft did not seem to be flown with any intent – good, bad or otherwise. That was stated by very experienced aviation witnesses in the trial.
Or was it just before his jet hit the ground (whilst he appeared to be pulling for all he was worth)?
Whatever CI there had been, if any, was receding by then – no disagreement.
I personally think his legal team played a blinder by introducing CI as a possible reason that the accident occurred, knowing that the prosecution were unable to prove it had, or hadn't
The AH legal team did not invent the concept of cognitive impairment. I think you’ll find that the issues were well aired beforehand - not least on PPRuNe.
From the evidence of a first responder at the crash site - AH said he “blacked out in the air”. Either he’s a quick thinking liar, or is there something else? He was very near death at that stage - indeed, his life was only saved a few moments later by the quick reactions of another first responder. What might be meant by “blacked out”? A person will not necessarily know if he has been unconscious.
We shall see if the AAIB does decide to reopen their inquiry.
airsound