Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
JB - I've not commented upon any criminality taking place, I've merely commented upon what one might see in such a situation.
I think this discussion is taking place (forgive my assumption) because of this:-
Shoreham crash: Police go to High Court to see evidence - BBC News
Where it says "Det Ch Insp Paul Rymarz said aviation law blocks access to some Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) material.This includes cockpit recordings and footage, witness accounts and specialist reports"
It is my personal view that filming with a Go-Pro is not done for flight safety and so the various arguments that relate to other recorded aircraft safety media do not apply.
My reference to Mr190 mph is that you initially suggested recorded media of a 'Go-Pro' nature were "inadmissible' and that suggests where such material shows laws have been broken video recordings are admissible as evidence.
In which case that information could be volunteered freely and would, for example, clarify what readings were on the altimeter that of course the pilot was using to reference his height...
I think this discussion is taking place (forgive my assumption) because of this:-
Shoreham crash: Police go to High Court to see evidence - BBC News
Where it says "Det Ch Insp Paul Rymarz said aviation law blocks access to some Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) material.This includes cockpit recordings and footage, witness accounts and specialist reports"
It is my personal view that filming with a Go-Pro is not done for flight safety and so the various arguments that relate to other recorded aircraft safety media do not apply.
My reference to Mr190 mph is that you initially suggested recorded media of a 'Go-Pro' nature were "inadmissible' and that suggests where such material shows laws have been broken video recordings are admissible as evidence.
I do not understand why the police should want to see any footage of any primary flight instruments. Whatever the instruments display, no criminal offence took place.
So far as I know, what that means is that the police are not entitled to access evidence which was gathered for safety investigation purposes by the AAIB. If the police want that evidence then they have to go and gather it themselves.The evidence may well be the same - but has to be obtained under a police investigation and powers not under the somewhat different powers and mandate of AAIB.
G
G
Moderator
I very rarely read this forum but wandered in on this occasion.
I regret not abiding by my earlier decision to stay away.
I regret not abiding by my earlier decision to stay away.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to encourage wise people to contribute then you might wish to give careful and critical thought to why they don't and, in some instances, why they try and then fade away.
That applies equally to those who are in a position to post informed opinions.
eg Two highly respected test pilots, both of whom have extensive military jet (incl Hunter) and display flying experience, joined this discussion and then faded away. Two wise contributors, who have posted informed and balanced opinions in various PPRuNe forums for many years, lost to this thread - and perhaps the forum.
In (recent) stark contrast, when a buffoon (as he has demonstrated in various forums around the site) made a point based upon an entirely false premise, a prolific contributor to this thread and this forum was very quick to support him with "My thought too." Far too quick – the false premise was clear in the original post, if read with an open mind. When he makes ill-informed silly points in other forums they are, without fail, spotted and pointed out. Not here.
Because of my professional background, and as a PPL, this forum should be one of my natural haunts on PPRuNe. It isn't, primarily because I don't like the ethos.
I accept, of course, that the ethos might be correct and my approach wrong. Horses for courses.
That applies equally to those who are in a position to post informed opinions.
eg Two highly respected test pilots, both of whom have extensive military jet (incl Hunter) and display flying experience, joined this discussion and then faded away. Two wise contributors, who have posted informed and balanced opinions in various PPRuNe forums for many years, lost to this thread - and perhaps the forum.
In (recent) stark contrast, when a buffoon (as he has demonstrated in various forums around the site) made a point based upon an entirely false premise, a prolific contributor to this thread and this forum was very quick to support him with "My thought too." Far too quick – the false premise was clear in the original post, if read with an open mind. When he makes ill-informed silly points in other forums they are, without fail, spotted and pointed out. Not here.
Because of my professional background, and as a PPL, this forum should be one of my natural haunts on PPRuNe. It isn't, primarily because I don't like the ethos.
I accept, of course, that the ethos might be correct and my approach wrong. Horses for courses.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 6th Apr 2016 at 22:34.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to encourage wise people to contribute then you might wish to give careful and critical thought to why they don't and, in some instances, why they try and then fade away.
When MH370 went missing, I made a lengthy post about the difficulties of an open ocean search. My background - 27 years in maritime aviation, including countless SAR missions, qualified sea survival specialist, SAR co-ordinator etc etc. My post got randomly modded off the thread for no reason that I know of (it was politely written) whilst all manner of childish fantasies were chewed over and debated by all manner of trolls with zero idea of the subject.
As a long time contributor I have experienced and witnessed many anomalies like that on this site - it's no big deal IMO.
This is the internet/social media. It is what it is and whilst we may like to pretend otherwise, for must of us it is just entertainment, with the odd bit of useful research chucked in.
It's possible that the pilot made an error of judgement. Hands up those who haven't.
This was a tragic accident. To suggest it was a result of recklessness is ridiculous.
Plod's efforts to pin something on the pilot don't surprise me. Nothing they do surprises me. A lot of what they do disgusts me. As do the views of the Wannabe Prosecutors on this thread.
This was a tragic accident. To suggest it was a result of recklessness is ridiculous.
Plod's efforts to pin something on the pilot don't surprise me. Nothing they do surprises me. A lot of what they do disgusts me. As do the views of the Wannabe Prosecutors on this thread.
If a number of dead and seriously injured people turn up on their patch, the Police are under a duty to investigate the circumstances and provide evidence to the CPS, who then decide if a prosecution is in order.
The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation.
The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Old Fat One
You are probably right, but even a slight improvement would be better than no change (IMHO).
It sounds as though you were an innocent casualty of the extensive culling that was clearly necessary in the MH370 thread. I agree some nonsense posts were missed in the cull but the mods were obviously doing their best to cope with the sheer volume of them.
Accident threads always bring all sorts of people, and curious theories, out of the woodwork.
dastocks
Unlike much of what has been posted about various legal matters in this thread, you are absolutely correct.
Flyingmac
I agree. 
Speculation about the cause(s) of accidents before all the facts have emerged is commonplace. We now have uninformed comments about how the criminal side of the investigation should be conducted. And even criticisms by people who have no knowledge or understanding of the proper procedures/process but feel they must post their opinions anyway.
If it transpires that there are grounds for prosecuting anyone for any criminal offence(s) arising from this accident then that will happen at the proper time.
.
You are probably right, but even a slight improvement would be better than no change (IMHO).
It sounds as though you were an innocent casualty of the extensive culling that was clearly necessary in the MH370 thread. I agree some nonsense posts were missed in the cull but the mods were obviously doing their best to cope with the sheer volume of them.
Accident threads always bring all sorts of people, and curious theories, out of the woodwork.
dastocks
Unlike much of what has been posted about various legal matters in this thread, you are absolutely correct.
Flyingmac
the Wannabe Prosecutors
Speculation about the cause(s) of accidents before all the facts have emerged is commonplace. We now have uninformed comments about how the criminal side of the investigation should be conducted. And even criticisms by people who have no knowledge or understanding of the proper procedures/process but feel they must post their opinions anyway.
If it transpires that there are grounds for prosecuting anyone for any criminal offence(s) arising from this accident then that will happen at the proper time.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 7th Apr 2016 at 14:03.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a tragic accident. To suggest it was a result of recklessness is ridiculous.
There are many posts that imply that pilot error will be the at outcome and whether that is right or wrong at this stage of the process, that is world away from suggesting the pilot is reckless or anything like that.
Much of the discourse on both threads has been moderate and polite. It is people polarising the debate and then reacting over-emotionally to views they do not agree with that gives these thread a confrontational appearance.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen very little that actually sets out to pan the pilot in any over the top manner.
Edited to add .....
Much of the discourse on both threads has been moderate and polite.
There are many people with relevant expertise on the other thread. Not on this one.
It is people polarising the debate and then reacting over-emotionally to views they do not agree with that gives these thread a confrontational appearance.
I repeat my comment above.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must have different opinions about what is an "over the top manner."
"the pilot mishandled the jet and flew it into the ground...or words to the effect" (not my opinion, just an example).
That's not over the top...it's a perfectly reasonable comment, albeit one that is conjecture, speculative and premature. But it is not overtly offensive and it merely suggests a mistake...something all humans do, all the time -To err is human.
"the pilot acted in an unlawful or reckless manner" (again, an example not an opinion)
That is over the top (clearly!) It suggests a behavior on the part of pilot that goes beyond that of a simple flying error.
I would label the second sort of comment above as trolling and I would utterly condemn it. However, my point is I'm not sure there are very many posts of this nature in either of the very longs threads on this subject.
I'm not sad enough to go through them both and check, but if anybody can be bothered and they find a significant number (there is always the occasional troll) I'll happily admit I'm wrong.
There are many people with relevant expertise on the other thread. Not on this one.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This FACTOR report may interest readers and commentators.
Apologies if it's been posted before; I did look but not all that far back. It came into my email Inbox from the CAA this afternoon.
Apologies if it's been posted before; I did look but not all that far back. It came into my email Inbox from the CAA this afternoon.
I am sure that there will be some people with relevant expertise who keep a close eye on this thread and would contribute if they had anything relevant to add. However, both this thread and the other one on the same subject have now been running for a long time so it is unlikely that they will have much useful new data to contribute. When the final AAIB report is published then it is highly likely that they will be able to add informed comment to questions posed here.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the go pro evidence is relevant I would expect it to be admitted.
In both civil and criminal proceedings.
As an example, if Mr Plod pulls over motorcyclist for alleged speeding, and sees a go pro attached to helmet....what do you think will happen to go pro footage ?
If accident in any vehicle, including boat, plane, car.....and go pro footage shows captain, pilot driver was not at controls of vehicle, or was distracted by texting when accident happened, does anyone thing such footage would not be relevant ?
So for me the assertion that all private video footage is just not admissible evidence, in any court of law is just nonsense.
In both civil and criminal proceedings.
As an example, if Mr Plod pulls over motorcyclist for alleged speeding, and sees a go pro attached to helmet....what do you think will happen to go pro footage ?
If accident in any vehicle, including boat, plane, car.....and go pro footage shows captain, pilot driver was not at controls of vehicle, or was distracted by texting when accident happened, does anyone thing such footage would not be relevant ?
So for me the assertion that all private video footage is just not admissible evidence, in any court of law is just nonsense.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^
Unless you are a legal eagle I would stay well of such technical matters as admissibility of evidence, in this or any other case.
As I'm sure FL will point out, there will be plethora of reasons why any evidence is admissible or otherwise, most of which will be total mystery to us laymen.
Point of interest, I was involved in a Court Martial (as assistant to defending council) so I got to see the redaction... less than 30 percent of all the gathered evidence was deemed admissible, and even stuff like eye witness reports (including by Harry Staish) were deemed inadmissible for all sorts of reasons.
Unless you are a legal eagle I would stay well of such technical matters as admissibility of evidence, in this or any other case.
As I'm sure FL will point out, there will be plethora of reasons why any evidence is admissible or otherwise, most of which will be total mystery to us laymen.
Point of interest, I was involved in a Court Martial (as assistant to defending council) so I got to see the redaction... less than 30 percent of all the gathered evidence was deemed admissible, and even stuff like eye witness reports (including by Harry Staish) were deemed inadmissible for all sorts of reasons.
As Flying Lawyer has repeatedly reminded us, I'm not a "legal eagle".
However, I've written quite a lot of expert witness reports, submitted to both criminal and civil courts, and worked alongside a lot of solicitors and barristers in the course of that.
My take on it is that virtually all evidence can potentially be submitted to a court, but all of that can (and probably will) be challenged for its validity, errors, intertpretation and truth.
Which to me, seems entirely appropriate.
I recently worked on a detailed analysis of a very large military fatal accident inquiry. A tiny amount was redacted - basically only the names of key serving personnel and their families, and a few items about operational codes. Certainly less than 1% of the whole, and virtually nothing that interfered with my ability to analyse the accident. My impression is that since Mull of Kintyre - which was about the first time I had detailed sight of investigations into a military accident, the MoD has changed its approach massively and has become far less overtly secretive.
G
However, I've written quite a lot of expert witness reports, submitted to both criminal and civil courts, and worked alongside a lot of solicitors and barristers in the course of that.
My take on it is that virtually all evidence can potentially be submitted to a court, but all of that can (and probably will) be challenged for its validity, errors, intertpretation and truth.
Which to me, seems entirely appropriate.
I recently worked on a detailed analysis of a very large military fatal accident inquiry. A tiny amount was redacted - basically only the names of key serving personnel and their families, and a few items about operational codes. Certainly less than 1% of the whole, and virtually nothing that interfered with my ability to analyse the accident. My impression is that since Mull of Kintyre - which was about the first time I had detailed sight of investigations into a military accident, the MoD has changed its approach massively and has become far less overtly secretive.
G
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Go Pro" like video evidence factored in this Canadian accident:
Hang-glider pilot sentenced to 5 months over fatal tandem accident in B.C. that saw woman fall 300 metres to her death | CTV News
Hang-glider pilot sentenced to 5 months over fatal tandem accident in B.C. that saw woman fall 300 metres to her death | CTV News
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fat One
Problem as I see it is that a few people come up with absurd statements which have no legal grounding. These people need to be called out.
Am I a legal eagle? Member of Middle Temple since 1998. 👍🏻
A simple Google will show differences between admissibility in civil or criminal proceedings.
It will also show that the statement that all video recordings on go pro cameras in all proceedings, be they criminal or civil, is simply not accurate.
Problem as I see it is that a few people come up with absurd statements which have no legal grounding. These people need to be called out.
Am I a legal eagle? Member of Middle Temple since 1998. 👍🏻
A simple Google will show differences between admissibility in civil or criminal proceedings.
It will also show that the statement that all video recordings on go pro cameras in all proceedings, be they criminal or civil, is simply not accurate.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Problem as I see it is that a few people come up with absurd statements which have no legal grounding. These people need to be called out. "
I agree.
"A simple Google will show differences between admissibility in civil or criminal proceedings."
Correct.
"Member of Middle Temple since 1998."
Really? Can you tell us in your own words how 'evidence' gained unlawfully and showing no criminal activity whatsoever could possibly be held admissible.
It is my submission that we can all agree that an unfortunate accident took place and would not need any Go Pro evidence to support that.
'If' this case proceeds, it is again my submission that there is no case to answer.
Others may disagree and that is their prerogative.
I agree.
"A simple Google will show differences between admissibility in civil or criminal proceedings."
Correct.
"Member of Middle Temple since 1998."
Really? Can you tell us in your own words how 'evidence' gained unlawfully and showing no criminal activity whatsoever could possibly be held admissible.
It is my submission that we can all agree that an unfortunate accident took place and would not need any Go Pro evidence to support that.
'If' this case proceeds, it is again my submission that there is no case to answer.
Others may disagree and that is their prerogative.