Pulse1
" Another factor which has changed the face of accident investigation must be the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). It was this which enabled the families of deceased, for the first time, to see the BOI reports. In most, if not all, of the bad accidents since then, starting with the Chinook MOK accident, it has been the families who have created to pressure for a thorough and fair investigation."
I fear that merely passing on the raw details of BoI findings to bereaved families will not always help – unless those families are given access to experts (in the MOK case, non-interested Chinook aircrew and engineers), with a brief to translate the findings into lay person’s terms and answer questions as to how flying operations are carried out in practice.
I have seen how families react to BoI findings and in my view it is too much to expect the lay person to understand the finer points of Airmanship, for example. It would need to be explained that aircrew, like the captains of ships, are always ultimately responsible for the safe navigation of their aircraft – to avoid flying into high ground in cloud for example.
If the aircrew concerned are having to deal with a major emergency at the same time then in my view that does not absolve them from the duty of safe navigation. ( I leave aside the tricky question of being flown into the ground under close Radar Control – it nearly happened to me once.)
Each aircraft type has a different procedure for encountering unsuitable weather at low level, depending on aircraft performance – specifically, the angle of climb which can be achieved and maintained to clear any perceived obstacle ahead. If there is any doubt that a safe flight path cannot be maintained all the way to Safety Altitude then the only option is to turn away from the high ground and climb on a known safe track. In the MOK incident that heading would presumably have been a westerly one.