Inquest: 'Rotorblade downwash did not cause plane crash'

[Heliport]

Islandcrazy

Thanks. You're probably right.



QDM
From what I've heard around the bazaars, the Sea King captain was just hung out to dry. Certain RAF top brass couldn't seem to grasp the difference between not complying to the letter with RAF procedures and causing an accident.

There was an article about the other side to this tragedy in the Telegraph at the end of last year.
(Extract)

Grounded pilot is 'forgotten victim' of £5m crash case

The wife of an RAF Sea King helicopter pilot says her husband has become a forgotten victim after the Ministry of Defence paid £5 million to the family of a leading investment banker who was killed in a plane crash.
Penny Binsted said her husband, Flt Lt Peter Binsted, had been unfairly implicated in connection with the crash at St Mawgan RAF base, Cornwall, in June 2001.

Flt Lt Binsted, 52, a pilot of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft for 28 years, has been grounded and told he cannot fly again before he retires in two years time.

Although the MoD settled the case without admitting liability, Mrs Binsted, a researcher at NorthDevonCollege, Barnstaple, said her husband's career and professional reputation had been "rubbished".
"I have no idea why the MoD wasted £5 million of taxpayers money to settle the case instead of defending the good name of the RAF and its airmen. It was not an MoD error."

Extending her sympathy to Mrs Paton, she added: "I know it is very upsetting for her and I know the family have had a horrible time. The inquest is not until next year, so to wait more than four years for that must be grotesque. But there is another side to this. Our family has been in limbo, too. My husband has had his flying career put on hold, and our family life has been blighted. Being confined to a desk compiling statistics has been soul destroying for my husband."

The Paton family, from Highgate, north London, sued the MoD, claiming the crash was caused by a Sea King manoeuvring too close to the runway. The accident occurred when Mr Paton lost control of his aircraft while landing on the runway. The Sea King was near the runway and air taxiing to take off.

In her writ, Mrs Paton said the helicopter "made as if to cross the runway" directly in the Cessna's path. Mr Paton lost stability after the Cessna passed through air disturbed by the helicopter's rotor blades.

However, Mrs Binsted claimed the Air Accident Investigation Branch report had concluded that Mr Paton was responsible for his own accident.
She cited a paragraph, which said "the activity of the Sea King and the loss of control by the pilot of the Cessna were two distinct, and for the most part, unrelated events occurring at the same time".

Mrs Binsted said her husband had been allowed to continue to fly for a year after the accident until an RAF board of inquiry "implicated" him and his crew. She said: "The board wrongly stated many facts; one was that he disobeyed an order from air traffic control to shut down his helicopter".

A second RAF board of inquiry was held earlier this year and had "exonerated" her husband.
Mrs Binsted said her husband and crew had been commended in the second board of inquiry for their part in the rescue of the Paton family. The crash had a detrimental effect on her husband, as he had been unable to work in 2002 on medical grounds, having suffered post traumatic stress disorder.
But despite having gained a full flying medical category in December last year, he had been refused leave to return to a flying post, she added.

The MoD, which had been expected to defend the case, but settled on the eve of the hearing, said the settlement was on "a without liability basis".
The MoD said: "The AAIB report is an independent report, which formed part of the evidence in this case. Therefore we are not going to comment on the report. However, the settlement reached was without prejudice.
"There were two boards of inquiry. The purpose of a BOI is to determine the facts regarding an incident. The findings from any BOI do not apportion blame arising from an incident and thus there is no question of any individual being exonerated as the result of a BOI."


H