Actually I think recent accident investigations have been handled terribly. That is not just confined to the Shoreham accident but recent helicopter accidents in the North Sea, Glasgow and even London.
Its easy to think of accident investigation purely as an engineering process to be gone through uncluttered by outside influence. Yet why does good communication prejudice any of that? Why are human factors in the UK poorly investigated (in fact the Glasgow helicopter accident report hardly looked at all into them despite multiple alarms being cancelled for example)?
Why does any outcome or feedback into improving safety fall into an abyss without timeframe, ownership, accountability, worse no record or detail into the thinking and decision making around any safety recommendations? CAA, who was part of the decision making, when did it get considered, where are the minutes of that meeting, etc, etc.
Its not about blame, its about rigor and professionalism. Its so when things go wrong (as they can do) we don't need a "review" that reviews the thing that was reviewed months before. Its so that we show a confidence in what we are about so that others (perhaps the public) may have a confidence to allow us to keeping do it. I think the lawyers might call it reputational damage.
Take any of that list and you'll find the current structure lacking but communication is especially pitiful.
Vauxhall helicopter crash victim's sister tells of her three year struggle for answers as inquest into tragedy begins | London | News | London Evening Standard
Sturgeon: How much longer must the Clutha families wait for answers? - Daily Record
North Sea oil worker helicopter crash victim's inquest reviewed (From The Northern Echo)
...so it goes on and why? On a emotive level its just poor form that victims of this are being forced to relive these events and have it lingering on for so long. For the wider aviation community if safety is paramount then again delay is unacceptable.
Back to Shoreham.
This has a huge set of potential consequences for all kinds of people, not least of all insurance. We all need it, but one thing not really explored here is just what level might be considered adequate in future? After all what is the cost going to be here and what cover available to call upon? What contracts existed between the pilot and the aircraft owners? None of that need figure in an AAIB report but my goodness it could be an important element to consider for all pilots.
Yet to cut to the chase its been 3 months since the accident. We have a pilot, we have video footage, we have the various 3rd parties that were involved in the effort (the aircraft owner, its maintenance records and people, the pilots DAE, the display organiser, the director) and we are told that the AAIB will report late in 2016. Really? Why is that? Is it just because they are too busy elsewhere? Is it because they share one typist? Is it because there is a specific element of investigation that is taking some time?
It is impossible that in the 3 months since the accident absolute clarity can not be given regarding where the investigation is and what elements are being focused upon. Whilst that may be a departure from the ivory tower of saying nothing it would be a refreshing improvement.
It would be very cruel if this followed that lead set with the Glasgow helicopter crash where radio silence prevailed until the very last only for nothing really new to emerge - which could have been communicated a year before.
I personally doubt anything will emerge in the Shoreham investigation that will distract the focus away from the piloting and so perhaps cynically at least the CAA can have their review published in good time and so be ready to tick most of any AAIB safety recommendation boxes.