Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a licensed engineer and also ex military engineer whom has exposure to AAES, I totally agree with Hebog's post. I thought guys in this country would not try and pull the same stunts as Thunder City with ZU-BEX and out of date cartridges. Such explosives have a shelf life not due to MB wanting to make money but because they are perishable by their very nature of use. However it seems I was wrong. As an LAE, I do not have the authority to extend anything without approval of a higher authority, that being as high as the OEM or regulator if it is outside the limits of the company exposition.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Hebog
The AAIB published a special bulletin in September.
In it they stated that the aircraft appeared to be responding normally to the control inputs from the pilot and no abnormalities have been identified.
They also described the interior cameras recording and gave the speed and altitude at the top of the inverted position.
This is why @Piltdownman made their observations about the lack any apparent failings in the aircraft itself.
The exact phraseology of the AAIB is on page 5 of the pdf link from from this url below
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...nter-t7-g-bxfi
The AAIB published a special bulletin in September.
In it they stated that the aircraft appeared to be responding normally to the control inputs from the pilot and no abnormalities have been identified.
They also described the interior cameras recording and gave the speed and altitude at the top of the inverted position.
This is why @Piltdownman made their observations about the lack any apparent failings in the aircraft itself.
The exact phraseology of the AAIB is on page 5 of the pdf link from from this url below
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...nter-t7-g-bxfi
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At some point, CAA may review its policy of requiring active seats for some ex mil jets. It has already decided they can be de-activated for some types.
In civilian hands, my view is they are as likely to cause serious harm as they are to save life. Civilian pilots are also less likely to encounter the same military scenarios requiring ejection - hit my missile for example. However, close formation flying is an example where having a live seat may be of benefit.
Seat design has moved on over the years. The Martin Baker seat in the hunter was called a bang seat. Spinal compression could be expected in a young fit pilot following ejection. Are there any medics out there with a view on what might be the result on the spine of a mid 50s pilot following ejection?
Compare the very upright design of the early Martin Bakers with the more relaxed seats of the harriers in their last variant, with rocket packs.....
there are plenty of very capable civilian aircraft without ejection seat capabilities.
For me it is safer to fly some if these jets with the seats decommissioned.
Arguments over whether the cartridges in question were or were not installed with the knowledge and / or the permission / non objection from the CAA do not advance the discussion of what caused this tragic accident.
In civilian hands, my view is they are as likely to cause serious harm as they are to save life. Civilian pilots are also less likely to encounter the same military scenarios requiring ejection - hit my missile for example. However, close formation flying is an example where having a live seat may be of benefit.
Seat design has moved on over the years. The Martin Baker seat in the hunter was called a bang seat. Spinal compression could be expected in a young fit pilot following ejection. Are there any medics out there with a view on what might be the result on the spine of a mid 50s pilot following ejection?
Compare the very upright design of the early Martin Bakers with the more relaxed seats of the harriers in their last variant, with rocket packs.....
there are plenty of very capable civilian aircraft without ejection seat capabilities.
For me it is safer to fly some if these jets with the seats decommissioned.
Arguments over whether the cartridges in question were or were not installed with the knowledge and / or the permission / non objection from the CAA do not advance the discussion of what caused this tragic accident.
I have an L29 type rating. The aircraft I flew had an approved mod to decommission the ejection seats. I had no problem with this as I thought it was entirely appropriate to eliminate the risk of a ground mishap, or danger to rescue personnel.
The fact that it may have reduced the survivability of an accident was an informed one on my part, and one I was willing to take.
The fact that it may have reduced the survivability of an accident was an informed one on my part, and one I was willing to take.
Seems fairly straight-forward to me ?
There were two Go-Pro cameras that filmed the accident (in fact they continue to film post accident) the footage of which has long been seen by the AAIB but according to reports (such as the BBC link below) following the coroner pre-inquest review such footage is subject to restricted access.
Why is that?
Shoreham crash: Police go to High Court to see evidence - BBC News
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's say Plod gets the GoPro footage. They will not doubt then go to a few 'experts'. They'll stop when one says, "based on my years of experience, blah, blah... that this was a clear case of criminal negligence and the pilot is totally to blame". Job done, banged to rights. Then no doubt the filthy compo lawyers will use the same evidence and different 'experts' to determine that [insert the name of someone with insurance] was totally at fault and they will walk out happy with the cash. Then the AAIB may give another version - the more likely version, the one with possibly a more nuanced causes - based on facts. But let us not stop there. The CAA have already worked out what has happened because they have shot their load already... (The CAA are unable to work out the difference between what and why).
What a system. A free-for-all farce with too many players. It cheapens the memory of those who have died, has already pointlessly reduced the spectacle of airshows and until we know why this event occurred, has failed to make airshows safer.
PM
ps. Task the CAA with oversight on firework shows and we would only be allowed underwater fireworks.
What a system. A free-for-all farce with too many players. It cheapens the memory of those who have died, has already pointlessly reduced the spectacle of airshows and until we know why this event occurred, has failed to make airshows safer.
PM
ps. Task the CAA with oversight on firework shows and we would only be allowed underwater fireworks.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had assumed from the interim report published by the AAIB that it was a preliminary report providing the information gathered from various sources and it should be regarded as tentative and is subject to alteration or correction. As further investigation will be carried out to examine the aircraft & the maintenance records to establish the condition of the aircraft before the accident. They were also looking at the operation of the aircraft, organisation of the event re public safety and associated regulatory issues.
Which would explain the following phrase ' the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilots control inputs. To date no abnormal indications have been identified'
As I assume they had not investigated the airframe physically at this stage but only a quick check before a more detailed forensic examination of the controls, engine, airframe and other components is carried out which may take months/years to complete.
Hence why I stated people should refrain from stating the pilot stoofed due to technique, as not all the facts had been gathered or fully investigated at that point.
Which would explain the following phrase ' the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilots control inputs. To date no abnormal indications have been identified'
As I assume they had not investigated the airframe physically at this stage but only a quick check before a more detailed forensic examination of the controls, engine, airframe and other components is carried out which may take months/years to complete.
Hence why I stated people should refrain from stating the pilot stoofed due to technique, as not all the facts had been gathered or fully investigated at that point.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to me it isn't, and given you (nor indeed nobody else previously heckling) have not offered further insight perhaps it isn't that straight-forward.
There were two Go-Pro cameras that filmed the accident (in fact they continue to film post accident) the footage of which has long been seen by the AAIB but according to reports (such as the BBC link below) following the coroner pre-inquest review, such footage is subject to restricted access.
Why is that?
Shoreham crash: Police go to High Court to see evidence - BBC News
There were two Go-Pro cameras that filmed the accident (in fact they continue to film post accident) the footage of which has long been seen by the AAIB but according to reports (such as the BBC link below) following the coroner pre-inquest review, such footage is subject to restricted access.
Why is that?
Shoreham crash: Police go to High Court to see evidence - BBC News
Because that is the law. (See below.)
It is summarised in the first three paragraphs of BBC News report - which you originally linked in post 847 more than two weeks ago.
You quoted an extract from the opening paragraphs and then said:
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.
Your error lies in "do not".
Whether or not you agree with the relevant law (I do), the AAIB will not and can not disclose unless ordered to do so by a court which has the power to order disclosure.
The law also specifies the conflicting/competing considerations which a Judge must take into account in all such applications before deciding whether or not it is appropriate to order the AAIB to disclose any or all material sought.
Similar restrictions apply in all jurisdictions throughout the developed world. The terminology and procedure vary but the principle remains the same, as does the underlying flight safety reason for the restrictions.
If you genuinely wish to learn more about why there are such restrictions then I recommend that you start with:
- The Convention on International Civil Aviation. In particular, Annex 13. The Convention has been amended several times since it was adopted in Chicago in December 1944 so you'd need to read the most recent version.
- The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996.
- EU Regulation 996/2010 'Investigation and Prevention of Accidents and Incidents in Civil Aviation'.
Some of the comments you made in a later post (878) further confirm a lack of understanding in this area. I tried to explain to you several times in the other Hunter thread but eventually gave up.
I say "genuinely wish to learn" because, unless you are able to put aside your preconceived notions, then reading the documents I've referenced will probably be a waste of time.
You may find that PPRuNers are more likely to take the time to respond to you if you don't accuse those with whom you disagree of "heckling".
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 20th Apr 2016 at 12:44.
Flying Lawyer
Pittsextra
Quote:
Why is that?
The answer was contained in the opening paragraphs of BBC news report which you originally linked in post 847.
You quoted a part of the report and then said:
Quote:
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.
Your error lies in "do not" apply.
If you had said "should not" then that would have been an opinion with which some might agree and others would not.
Whether or not you agree with the relevant law (I do), the AAIB will not and can not disclose unless ordered to do so by a court which has the power to order disclosure.
The law also specifies the conflicting factors which a Judge must take into account before deciding whether or not to order disclosure of material sought. (In all such applications.)
Similar restrictions upon disclosure apply in all jurisdictions in the developed world.
The terminology and procedure vary but the principle remains the same, as does the underlying flight safety reason for the restrictions.
If you genuinely wish to learn more then you should start with:
I say "genuinely wish to learn" because, unless you are prepared to contemplate the possibility, however unpalatable it may be, that you are currently failing to understand then reading the documents I've referenced will be a waste of time.
You may also find that discussion is more productive if you don't accuse people with whom you disagree of "heckling".
Pittsextra
Quote:
Why is that?
The answer was contained in the opening paragraphs of BBC news report which you originally linked in post 847.
You quoted a part of the report and then said:
Quote:
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.
Your error lies in "do not" apply.
If you had said "should not" then that would have been an opinion with which some might agree and others would not.
Whether or not you agree with the relevant law (I do), the AAIB will not and can not disclose unless ordered to do so by a court which has the power to order disclosure.
The law also specifies the conflicting factors which a Judge must take into account before deciding whether or not to order disclosure of material sought. (In all such applications.)
Similar restrictions upon disclosure apply in all jurisdictions in the developed world.
The terminology and procedure vary but the principle remains the same, as does the underlying flight safety reason for the restrictions.
If you genuinely wish to learn more then you should start with:
- The Convention on International Civil Aviation. In particular, Annex 13. The Convention has been amended several times since it was adopted in Chicago in 1944 so ensure that your read the most recent version.
- The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996. In particular, Regulation 18.
- Regulation EU 996/2010 on the Investigation and Prevention of Accidents and Incidents in Civil Aviation. In particular, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 14.
I say "genuinely wish to learn" because, unless you are prepared to contemplate the possibility, however unpalatable it may be, that you are currently failing to understand then reading the documents I've referenced will be a waste of time.
You may also find that discussion is more productive if you don't accuse people with whom you disagree of "heckling".
The irony is that having read Article 14 (which you initially referred me to) that Article has the title "protection of sensitive safety information" and then continues in paragraph 3 that notwithstanding all of paragraphs 1 & 2 records can be disclosed if the administration of justice decides it should be...
I agree my sentence construction was poor and I used the words "do not" when "should not" was the better choice. However actually for all of the pages of legal text there is still a debate to be had AND in fact it is a debate that is likely to happen.
So where does this leave us in terms of aviation safety? Do we want to treat personal Go-Pro cameras in the same way as specific safety related aviation recording devices? Do you believe that Go-Pro camera footage should be covered by the laws you refer me to, and if so how is that protecting aviation safety?
Finally it would seem quite odd and ultimately pointless to have para 1 & 2 of Article 14 if para 3 drives a coach and horses between it, especially because one might well believe that those with the ability to pull the trigger on para.3 are very likely not to have much in the way of an aviation background. Doesn't that then become less to do with aviation safety and more to do with process?
Thanks for the reply and for completeness I didn't suggest you were heckling.
With respect to deactivating ejection seats there are two considerations. The first is if you wish to maintain the capability for a manual bail out via the manual separation mechanism of the ejection seat or by installing a static seat and using a conventional parachute. If so, is there an adequate egress route? Can the canopy be opened or jettisoned to permit the bail out? Is there sufficient space to get out of the cockpit, especially at high speed? If the cockpit access has not been designed for this abandonment case then such an option may not be feasible. Secondly, if it is a single-engine aircraft is the glide threshold speed low enough to permit an off-runway forced landing following an engine failure? For some aircraft such as the Jet Provost the answer may be yes. For high speed swept wing aircraft the answer will probably be no. So, if the glide speed is too high for an off-runway forced landing and a safe egress route for a manual bail-out does not exist then flying with an inhibited ejection seat would, in my opinion, be foolhardy.
There is one ex-UK military ejection seat type of which there are some examples flying on non-UK civilian register with inhibited ejection seats but with pilots wearing a manual parachute. However, this type does not have a canopy jettison system, the canopy cannot be opened in flight and the explosive canopy fracture system was not cleared for in-flight usage in RAF service because the pilot would suffer serious/potentially fatal injuries if it was operated other than as part of the ejection sequence. So how does the pilot bail out manually? And, therefore, in these circumstances why wear a parachute?! Again, my personal opinion is that taking such risks for recreational flying is not justifiable.
There is one ex-UK military ejection seat type of which there are some examples flying on non-UK civilian register with inhibited ejection seats but with pilots wearing a manual parachute. However, this type does not have a canopy jettison system, the canopy cannot be opened in flight and the explosive canopy fracture system was not cleared for in-flight usage in RAF service because the pilot would suffer serious/potentially fatal injuries if it was operated other than as part of the ejection sequence. So how does the pilot bail out manually? And, therefore, in these circumstances why wear a parachute?! Again, my personal opinion is that taking such risks for recreational flying is not justifiable.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra
I'll come back to some of your points when I have more time.
In the meantime, please answer the 2 questions below.
Ironic or not, that is the law.
Questions:
They are not 'legal' questions.
Please answer them clearly and unambiguously.
.
I'll come back to some of your points when I have more time.
In the meantime, please answer the 2 questions below.
The irony is that ..... notwithstanding all of paragraphs 1 & 2, records can be disclosed if the administration of justice decides it should be...
Questions:
- Do you think that the AAIB should be ordered to disclose the Go-Pro footage to the Police?
- If Yes, why?
They are not 'legal' questions.
Please answer them clearly and unambiguously.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 21st Apr 2016 at 07:21.
Hey good morning - on train so super fast post.
1 - yes
2 - because a) I don't believe there (two cameras) fitment was for flight safety purposes. b) I think the drawn out process that results causes additional stress for victims c) any reference to the footage in any AAIB final report makes it likely that a judgement would be made that footage would be released anyway - otherwise you'd have some curious situation where you could read about the footage but not see it. d) the footage in itself does not prejudice the pilot it merely gives added colour to the wider event, therefore given this is single pilot aircraft the pilot is considered/responsible - who is able to complete the narrative - or not. e) the release of the media would not seem to me an event that would discourage others using Go-Pro cameras capturing their GA flying activities f) other than the letter of law I have not heard a reason why the release of the film damages either this pilots integrity or the case of wider aviation safety g) the process is distractional to those involved
1 - yes
2 - because a) I don't believe there (two cameras) fitment was for flight safety purposes. b) I think the drawn out process that results causes additional stress for victims c) any reference to the footage in any AAIB final report makes it likely that a judgement would be made that footage would be released anyway - otherwise you'd have some curious situation where you could read about the footage but not see it. d) the footage in itself does not prejudice the pilot it merely gives added colour to the wider event, therefore given this is single pilot aircraft the pilot is considered/responsible - who is able to complete the narrative - or not. e) the release of the media would not seem to me an event that would discourage others using Go-Pro cameras capturing their GA flying activities f) other than the letter of law I have not heard a reason why the release of the film damages either this pilots integrity or the case of wider aviation safety g) the process is distractional to those involved
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...And if I may participate too, perhaps the video available to the AAIB shows something which would reflect favourably upon the pilot of the Hunter, and reduce or pre-empt the police interest in the case. It could be though of as "objective" by all interested parties.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a lot of photos, and I presume videos, which are provided as "evidence" to aid an official investigation which never come to public view. They serve the investigative purpose without ever being available to more sensitive viewers, who have no real need to view. But, I make no assertion in respect of this event, that is just my personal experience with other investigations with which I have been involved.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is my first post on this long-running thread....
Firstly, I think it would be prurient for the GoPro footage be released.
I still have images, nearly 30 years later, of the horrendous Frecce Tricolori crash at Ramstein and the crash of an Su-27 at an air show in Ukraine in 2002 when it crashed into the crowd and I do not need to see fresh film of another accident to allow my imagination to "see" what happened at Shoreham.
What is more I know that if this film was released it would go viral straightaway and be across the internet for all to see......
No flight safety benefit is likely to come from that and I would far prefer to wait for an official report from the appropriate authorities, the CAA and AAIB. Those with other agendas, including journos, trolls and arm-chair experts will have to be patient; I am sure they will be able to rest assured in the certainty that personal-injury lawyers will be representing the families of the deceased (may the RIP) and those that were injured are already on to the case.
Andy Hill, like every other pilot I know, took off on that fateful day with every intention of going "home" after work. The same is true also for those that were killed and injured. It was not deliberate or planned and he came with a whisker of being killed himself - such is the nature with an accident - which is what this is. Sure there will be lessons to be learned but equally even criminals enjoy a presumption of innocence at law until after a Court judgement of guilty as charged....
Yes, I know, some totally innocent good people died as a result of this accident but sometimes $hit happens.....whether it be a Glasgow bin-lorry accident or the helicopter crash that killed other perfectly innocent people in the Clutha Vaults bar in 2013. All of this is tragic for the people affected but nothing we do in life is totally risk-free and it would be folly to think that more restrictions or bans will completely remove the risk of another accident. As things stand the odds against such an accident happening again I think are good enough for most people not to be deterred from going to an air show and for those living nearby not to start selling-up.
Finally, it would be considerate I think to spare a thought to what AH must be going through. Survivor's guilt can be hard to live with......and in saying that I would like to say I have no connection with AH or his family and have never met him.
MB
Firstly, I think it would be prurient for the GoPro footage be released.
I still have images, nearly 30 years later, of the horrendous Frecce Tricolori crash at Ramstein and the crash of an Su-27 at an air show in Ukraine in 2002 when it crashed into the crowd and I do not need to see fresh film of another accident to allow my imagination to "see" what happened at Shoreham.
What is more I know that if this film was released it would go viral straightaway and be across the internet for all to see......No flight safety benefit is likely to come from that and I would far prefer to wait for an official report from the appropriate authorities, the CAA and AAIB. Those with other agendas, including journos, trolls and arm-chair experts will have to be patient; I am sure they will be able to rest assured in the certainty that personal-injury lawyers will be representing the families of the deceased (may the RIP) and those that were injured are already on to the case.
Andy Hill, like every other pilot I know, took off on that fateful day with every intention of going "home" after work. The same is true also for those that were killed and injured. It was not deliberate or planned and he came with a whisker of being killed himself - such is the nature with an accident - which is what this is. Sure there will be lessons to be learned but equally even criminals enjoy a presumption of innocence at law until after a Court judgement of guilty as charged....
Yes, I know, some totally innocent good people died as a result of this accident but sometimes $hit happens.....whether it be a Glasgow bin-lorry accident or the helicopter crash that killed other perfectly innocent people in the Clutha Vaults bar in 2013. All of this is tragic for the people affected but nothing we do in life is totally risk-free and it would be folly to think that more restrictions or bans will completely remove the risk of another accident. As things stand the odds against such an accident happening again I think are good enough for most people not to be deterred from going to an air show and for those living nearby not to start selling-up.
Finally, it would be considerate I think to spare a thought to what AH must be going through. Survivor's guilt can be hard to live with......and in saying that I would like to say I have no connection with AH or his family and have never met him.
MB
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra
Paragraph 3:
That follows the wording in the Chicago Convention. The corresponding provision in the Chicago convention is followed by this explanatory note:
I don't agree that para 3 drives a coach and horses through paras 1 & 2, nor that it makes those paras ultimately pointless.
No disclosure unless is IMHO better (in flight safety terms) than having no restrictions at all.
I understand the argument.
Some would add 'and not fully understand the adverse impact that disclosure may have on that or future safety investigations and the consequent adverse impact upon future flight safety.
It's clear that there are also some people with an 'aviation background' who haven't fully thought through the consequences that may flow from AAIB reports/material being used for a purpose for which they were not intended.
That said, informed opinion is also divided on the issue.
If by 'process' you mean legal proceedings, then arguably yes.
However, we have previously disagreed (in the other Hunter thread) about the potential adverse effect upon AAIB investigations, and ultimately future flight safety, if those in a position to assist decline to do so (or are reluctant to be full and frank) in case their assistance is subsequently used against them.
For some people, the ongoing argument is whether the public interest is best served by the AAIB being able to obtain as much information as possible (see sentences in bold above) or by criminal prosecution.
My response is intentionally general, as my previous posts in both threads have been.
I express no opinion about the Shoreham matter.
The irony is that having read Article 14 ….. that Article has the title "protection of sensitive safety information" and then continues in paragraph 3 that notwithstanding all of paragraphs 1 & 2, records can be disclosed if the administration of justice decides it should be...
Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, the administration of justice or the authority competent to decide on the disclosure of records according to national law may decide that the benefits of the disclosure of the records referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 for any other purposes permitted by law outweigh the adverse domestic and international impact that such action may have on that or any future safety investigation.
Member States may decide to limit the cases in which such a decision of disclosure may be taken, while respecting the legal acts of the Union.
Member States may decide to limit the cases in which such a decision of disclosure may be taken, while respecting the legal acts of the Union.
Note -
Information contained in the records listed above, which includes information given voluntarily by persons interviewed during the investigation of an accident or incident, could be utilized inappropriately for subsequent disciplinary, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings.
If such information is distributed, it may, in the future, no longer be openly disclosed to investigators.
Lack of access to such information would impede the investigation process and seriously affect flight safety.
Information contained in the records listed above, which includes information given voluntarily by persons interviewed during the investigation of an accident or incident, could be utilized inappropriately for subsequent disciplinary, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings.
If such information is distributed, it may, in the future, no longer be openly disclosed to investigators.
Lack of access to such information would impede the investigation process and seriously affect flight safety.
it would seem quite odd and ultimately pointless to have para 1 & 2 of Article 14 if para 3 drives a coach and horses between it
No disclosure unless is IMHO better (in flight safety terms) than having no restrictions at all.
especially because one might well believe that those with the ability to pull the trigger on para.3 are very likely not to have much in the way of an aviation background.
Some would add 'and not fully understand the adverse impact that disclosure may have on that or future safety investigations and the consequent adverse impact upon future flight safety.
It's clear that there are also some people with an 'aviation background' who haven't fully thought through the consequences that may flow from AAIB reports/material being used for a purpose for which they were not intended.
That said, informed opinion is also divided on the issue.
Doesn't that then become less to do with aviation safety and more to do with process?
However, we have previously disagreed (in the other Hunter thread) about the potential adverse effect upon AAIB investigations, and ultimately future flight safety, if those in a position to assist decline to do so (or are reluctant to be full and frank) in case their assistance is subsequently used against them.
For some people, the ongoing argument is whether the public interest is best served by the AAIB being able to obtain as much information as possible (see sentences in bold above) or by criminal prosecution.
My response is intentionally general, as my previous posts in both threads have been.
I express no opinion about the Shoreham matter.
Before everyone gets excited and just for the avoidance of doubt nobody is asking here for a "public" release of the go-pro footage. The question is around its release to others - such as the caa, police, coroner such that they may conclude their work and people can move on.
More than that, another question is does the treatment of such film need to be clarified in order that the AAIB can reference its content? I'm not sure if that becomes contentious?
Yet we aren't done with flight safety yet. Mention of the aircraft apex height and the reference in reports to date is via radar and the subsequent claim that this allows a potential delta because of the cycle of such returns and therefore information. One thing that 'perhaps' the video might help with is to give an absolute clarity on the apex height - which may give some insight as to why the aircraft hit the ground - which might be useful to know for people engaged in such activities, such that they may give it focus in their own preparation... and so it goes on. That seems a totally sensible and rational reason for understanding the content more fully and soonest.
Could you expand on the rational vis the Go-Pro we are discussing here? See above for an example as to why understanding the video might be useful to flight safety above.
sure but given
so a debate is healthy? In your example of the Moth previously I still don't see how the pilots account and the AAIB's reflection / emphasis would change regardless of the information flow. In that example surely the views just differed and in that situation any Go-Pro footage would have been real useful to the pilot as his view gets backed up by the film footage.
More than that, another question is does the treatment of such film need to be clarified in order that the AAIB can reference its content? I'm not sure if that becomes contentious?
Yet we aren't done with flight safety yet. Mention of the aircraft apex height and the reference in reports to date is via radar and the subsequent claim that this allows a potential delta because of the cycle of such returns and therefore information. One thing that 'perhaps' the video might help with is to give an absolute clarity on the apex height - which may give some insight as to why the aircraft hit the ground - which might be useful to know for people engaged in such activities, such that they may give it focus in their own preparation... and so it goes on. That seems a totally sensible and rational reason for understanding the content more fully and soonest.
If such information is distributed, it may, in the future, no longer be openly disclosed to investigators.
Lack of access to such information would impede the investigation process and seriously affect flight safety.
Lack of access to such information would impede the investigation process and seriously affect flight safety.
However, we have previously disagreed (in the other Hunter thread) about the potential adverse effect upon AAIB investigations, and ultimately future flight safety, if those in a position to assist decline to do so (or are reluctant to be full and frank) in case their assistance is subsequently used against them.
For some people, the ongoing argument is whether the public interest is best served by the AAIB being able to obtain as much information as possible (see sentences in bold above) or by criminal prosecution.
For some people, the ongoing argument is whether the public interest is best served by the AAIB being able to obtain as much information as possible (see sentences in bold above) or by criminal prosecution.
That said, informed opinion is also divided on the issue.
Last edited by Pittsextra; 21st Apr 2016 at 20:54. Reason: edited to include FL reply
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's clear that there are also some people with an 'aviation background' who haven't fully thought through the consequences that may flow from AAIB reports/material being used for a purpose for which they were not intended.
I am aware of rationale that we firefighters do not video certain things, as a result of the use of video at the Asiana CFR response, which is reported to have capture a very sad event unintentionally. I've cut a path into a number of crashed cars for the police, to recover the data recorder for their use in accident reconstruction.... Every new technology is accompanied by new responsibilities for how it is handled.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitts
Some of us can see where you are attempting to drive. Thankfully, the law, based upon professional informed opinion is contrary to yours in this regard.
I am conscious that we could lose Flying Lawyer in this discussion if you persist in the fashion that you are doing. He has made it perfectly clear by saying I express no opinion about the Shoreham matter.
Please rest assured that *if* you were the pilot on that unfortunate day, based upon the evidence that we have seen and heard, I, and I'm sure the same others would be defending your position.
Some of us can see where you are attempting to drive. Thankfully, the law, based upon professional informed opinion is contrary to yours in this regard.
I am conscious that we could lose Flying Lawyer in this discussion if you persist in the fashion that you are doing. He has made it perfectly clear by saying I express no opinion about the Shoreham matter.
Please rest assured that *if* you were the pilot on that unfortunate day, based upon the evidence that we have seen and heard, I, and I'm sure the same others would be defending your position.