The AAIB publishes Reports in the shortest time possible and, if possible, within 12 months of the accident/serious incident. It is not always possible. Accuracy of the Report is more important than speed of publishing.
Some here appear to regard the investigation of the Shoreham accident as straight-forward. I don't. A pilot's actions are an important part of any air accident investigation, but they are just one part. There are other factors to be investigated, particularly following an accident of this nature.
If they are to be of any value, safety recommendations can only be made after a thorough investigation.
After a draft report has been completed, there is a further stage before it can be published.
If the report is likely to adversely affect the reputation of any person(s), it cannot be published until those persons (or, if deceased, their representatives) have been given notice of what the report will contain and an opportunity to make representations. In this context, person includes organisations.
The notice must include particulars of any proposed analysis of facts and conclusions about the cause(s) of the accident/serious incident. In practice, the notice includes a copy of the proposed report which the recipients are required to keep confidential except for the purpose of taking specialist advice.
The AAIB is not obliged to make any changes suggested but is required by law to consider representations before publishing the Report.
Representations should be served upon the investigating inspector within 28 days of service of the notice. However, the Chief Inspector has power to grant extensions. Except in very simple cases, 28 days is too short a period for those concerned to fully consider the contents with their legal advisors, obtain independent expert advice and then prepare representations so extensions in such circumstances are often granted. Rightly so, in my opinion which is based upon experience.
The notice/representations stage delays publication of the Report but it is a necessary stage in the interests of fairness and accuracy as well as a legal requirement.
_______
Even if, as some here have suggested, the pilot intended to perform a loop and began it lower than his intended entry height, I don't understand why that would result in him crashing into the ground.
Depending upon entry height, it might (for example) in a Harvard because completion is sometimes lower than entry. (That may be my lack of skill.) But in a high energy aircraft such as a Hunter?
I've flown a few loops in a Hunter (under instruction) and didn't notice whether I completed them higher, lower or the same height as I began but I assume that an experienced Hunter pilot would be able to complete a loop by at least his entry height, probably higher.
Is my assumption wrong?
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 9th Mar 2016 at 09:03.