Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wallingford
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, although the CAA is lifting the bar for minimum safety altitudes in ex-mil aircraft and competency for pilots in ex-mil aircraft (clearly not generic), I appeal to the CAA to be consistent: because you require specific authorisation for loops and barrel rolls in ex-mil aircraft in the DA, then please apply the very same logic (caution) to the risk assessment guidelines for ex-mil aircraft.
Last edited by 118.9; 17th Jun 2016 at 12:46.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoreham Pilot investigated for manslaughter by gross negligence - BBC article - and breach of Article 138, Air Navigation Order -
"A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft an aircraft to endanger any person or property"
Aviation law currently blocks Sussex Police access to some Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) material relating to the crash, last August. The Police force is required to take the transport secretary to court so the material can be released.
Det Ch Insp Paul Rymarz (leading the investigation), said: "The application is to enable Sussex Police to obtain access to legally protected material including cockpit recorders and footage, expert reports and some documentation." In march he told a pre-inquest hearing in March their inquiry "cannot progress effectively" until the High Court issues its ruling, in a hearing scheduled for 14 and 15 July.
Without this material "key evidence is missing and experts are not in a position to provide interpretations".
"A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft an aircraft to endanger any person or property"
Aviation law currently blocks Sussex Police access to some Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) material relating to the crash, last August. The Police force is required to take the transport secretary to court so the material can be released.
Det Ch Insp Paul Rymarz (leading the investigation), said: "The application is to enable Sussex Police to obtain access to legally protected material including cockpit recorders and footage, expert reports and some documentation." In march he told a pre-inquest hearing in March their inquiry "cannot progress effectively" until the High Court issues its ruling, in a hearing scheduled for 14 and 15 July.
Without this material "key evidence is missing and experts are not in a position to provide interpretations".
Last edited by John R81; 8th Jul 2016 at 11:01.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What isn't good?
The pilot was questioned last December.
People died so it was inevitable that he would be.
The press chose the headline 'Shoreham crash pilot facing possible manslaughter charge' because it sounds more dramatic.
The pilot was questioned last December.
People died so it was inevitable that he would be.
The press chose the headline 'Shoreham crash pilot facing possible manslaughter charge' because it sounds more dramatic.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Estonia
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People died so it was inevitable that he would be.
They are specifically trying to bypass AAIB protections before the report is completed.
It's hard to believe this won't affect the investigation, which should not be about whether or not he is culpable but how it was allowed to happen and how to stop it happening again.
Edit: Sorry, I have just reread and realised you mean it is a given that he would be questioned. I do agree with that.
Last edited by akaSylvia; 11th Jul 2016 at 09:18. Reason: clarification
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John R81
Makes prefect sense after all the Police only have part of the information regarding the matter, they need to check the aircraft itself and its records which they don't have access to. They also need as previously stated inspections carried out by competent persons into this and they do not have the resources / expertise within the police force. So therefore use experts in the field to do this.
After all if a car crashes and results in the death of persons, the vehicle is examined for defects and also the driver is questioned (as in the case of the Scottish bin lorry) plus witness statements are all provided to the CPS.
You can't expect the police to put a case to the CPS without the missing information and the only persons that have access to this is the AAIB.
I would imagine that the AAIB may not be able to issue their report until the CPS have decided if they will be taking any further action and then possibly after any resulting court case.
Makes prefect sense after all the Police only have part of the information regarding the matter, they need to check the aircraft itself and its records which they don't have access to. They also need as previously stated inspections carried out by competent persons into this and they do not have the resources / expertise within the police force. So therefore use experts in the field to do this.
After all if a car crashes and results in the death of persons, the vehicle is examined for defects and also the driver is questioned (as in the case of the Scottish bin lorry) plus witness statements are all provided to the CPS.
You can't expect the police to put a case to the CPS without the missing information and the only persons that have access to this is the AAIB.
I would imagine that the AAIB may not be able to issue their report until the CPS have decided if they will be taking any further action and then possibly after any resulting court case.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
akaSylvia
An AAIB investigation and a police investigation have different objectives.
The AAIB's objective relates to flight safety.
Hebog
Your summary of the position is broadly correct.
Two points:
Police take witness statements and provide them to the CPS.
There is nothing to prevent the police from taking statements from witnesses while an air accident investigation is being conducted by the AAIB.
The AAIB does not have to wait, and does not do so.
It is concerned only with the flight safety aspects and issues final reports as soon as it is in a position to do so.
which should not be about whether or not he is culpable but how it was allowed to happen and how to stop it happening again.
The AAIB's objective relates to flight safety.
Hebog
Your summary of the position is broadly correct.
Two points:
(Car crash) ..... witness statements are all provided to the CPS.
There is nothing to prevent the police from taking statements from witnesses while an air accident investigation is being conducted by the AAIB.
I would imagine that the AAIB may not be able to issue their report until the CPS have decided if they will be taking any further action and then possibly after any resulting court case.
It is concerned only with the flight safety aspects and issues final reports as soon as it is in a position to do so.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer - I assumed that as not to prejudice any case the CPS may or may not have they may be stopped in doing so, same as the coroners inquest or will this still be done in September regardless too.
The law is a law unto itself at times.
The law is a law unto itself at times.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPS and the AAIB
If the CPS expects a file to be submitted to it by the police, it can inform the AAIB of its interest in an investigation.
If so notified the AAIB makes available to the CPS a pre publication copy of the report.
Subject to consultation requirements the AAIB has a duty to publish its reports as soon as they are finalised. This means the CPS will get a copy only a few days before publication.
The CPS may comment on the report and also the timing of its publication in relation to any relevant criminal trial or any aspect of the report the CPS believes may prejudice the criminal proceedings.
The AAIB is obliged to consider the comments of the CPS but is not obliged to take any action as a result.
If so notified the AAIB makes available to the CPS a pre publication copy of the report.
Subject to consultation requirements the AAIB has a duty to publish its reports as soon as they are finalised. This means the CPS will get a copy only a few days before publication.
The CPS may comment on the report and also the timing of its publication in relation to any relevant criminal trial or any aspect of the report the CPS believes may prejudice the criminal proceedings.
The AAIB is obliged to consider the comments of the CPS but is not obliged to take any action as a result.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hebog
CPS
That's one point of view.
Another is that a police investigation/possible criminal proceedings should not impede the objective of the AAIB which is to make recommendations intended to prevent future accidents and serious incidents - and to issue its final report as soon as it is in a position to do so.
Opinions will inevitably differ about whether priority should be given to improving flight safety or to finding out whether any criminal offences may or may not have been committed.
Inquests
The AAIB does not have to wait until an inquest has been held before publishing its report.
Where there relevant criminal proceedings, Coroners formally open an inquest but are required adjourn it until the conclusion of those proceedings.
In serious/complex cases, the Chief Coroner may decide that an inquest should not be conducted by the "Senior Coroner" for the relevant area but by a serving or retired judge. eg Hillsborough, London bombings 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, London bombings 2005, the death of Ian Tomlinson in the City of London.
(The title "Senior Coroner" was invented in 2009 and, in my view, is misleading because he/she may or may not have either the expertise or the experience which the rather grand title suggests.
The process for appointing coroners is, and always has been, curious - to say the least.)
CPS
not to prejudice any case the CPS may or may not have
Another is that a police investigation/possible criminal proceedings should not impede the objective of the AAIB which is to make recommendations intended to prevent future accidents and serious incidents - and to issue its final report as soon as it is in a position to do so.
Opinions will inevitably differ about whether priority should be given to improving flight safety or to finding out whether any criminal offences may or may not have been committed.
Inquests
The AAIB does not have to wait until an inquest has been held before publishing its report.
Where there relevant criminal proceedings, Coroners formally open an inquest but are required adjourn it until the conclusion of those proceedings.
In serious/complex cases, the Chief Coroner may decide that an inquest should not be conducted by the "Senior Coroner" for the relevant area but by a serving or retired judge. eg Hillsborough, London bombings 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, London bombings 2005, the death of Ian Tomlinson in the City of London.
(The title "Senior Coroner" was invented in 2009 and, in my view, is misleading because he/she may or may not have either the expertise or the experience which the rather grand title suggests.
The process for appointing coroners is, and always has been, curious - to say the least.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 16th Jul 2016 at 00:29.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which takes precedence?
In my view, a safety investigation undertaken by the AAIB should take precedence over a criminal investigation. And indeed I would argue the law reflects this. The AAIB has powers to ensure that its investigations are not obstructed and that its actions are afforded priority, for example, at the scene of an incident.
The AAIB works on very different principles to the police and CPS; it is not an enforcing authority, it has significant powers but it does not apportion blame.
The AAIB works on very different principles to the police and CPS; it is not an enforcing authority, it has significant powers but it does not apportion blame.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the AAIB reports do lay blame where that is appropriate?
So for example they may say that the crew failed to do this, monitor that or whatever so the a/c approached at the wrong speed yada yada and crashed short. etc
Of course at this point everyone will duck and weave and seek to lay off blame elsewhere. The training was inadequate, ATC was confusing, the weather was sh*t, SOP prevented us: and off we go.....
How about the argument from the other side that if the AAIB report looked like putting the blame on the pilot, then rather than the CPS seeking to stop publication it is the pilot's legal team might be seeking an injunction to stop full public publication of the AAIB report so as to not prejudge the outcome of any future legal actions.
So for example they may say that the crew failed to do this, monitor that or whatever so the a/c approached at the wrong speed yada yada and crashed short. etc
Of course at this point everyone will duck and weave and seek to lay off blame elsewhere. The training was inadequate, ATC was confusing, the weather was sh*t, SOP prevented us: and off we go.....
How about the argument from the other side that if the AAIB report looked like putting the blame on the pilot, then rather than the CPS seeking to stop publication it is the pilot's legal team might be seeking an injunction to stop full public publication of the AAIB report so as to not prejudge the outcome of any future legal actions.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D SQDRN
I agree.
dsc810
I don't recall such an application ever being made.
I suspect the prospect of success would be +/- zero.
Jurors swear an oath or affirm that they will give a true verdict (or verdicts) according to the evidence.
Amongst other things, they are instructed:
(Edit)
Re Inquests
The High Court heard an application last week by the Secretary Of State For Transport for judicial review of a decision by the Norfolk Coroner relating to AAIB material.
I don't think judgment has yet been given. I can't find it online.
I agree.
dsc810
How about the argument from the other side ....
I suspect the prospect of success would be +/- zero.
Jurors swear an oath or affirm that they will give a true verdict (or verdicts) according to the evidence.
Amongst other things, they are instructed:
- To try the case only on the evidence and arguments they hear in court.
- To disregard any press/media reports about the trial.
- (When there has been publicity) To disregard anything they may have read or heard about the case.
- Not to carry out any private research of their own, for example by referring to books, the internet or by going to look at places referred to in the evidence.
- Not to discuss the case with anyone not on the jury and not allow anyone to talk to them about it, whether directly, by telephone, on social networking sites or in any other way.
(Edit)
Re Inquests
The High Court heard an application last week by the Secretary Of State For Transport for judicial review of a decision by the Norfolk Coroner relating to AAIB material.
I don't think judgment has yet been given. I can't find it online.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 16th Jul 2016 at 19:01.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dsc810. The AAIB does not lay blame, as you put it. This from their website:
The reference is https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...n-branch/about
Our purpose is to improve aviation safety globally by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents, and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. It is not to apportion blame or liability.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB are great at what they do but have no real powers, they are just a neutral voice.
The CAA have the powers that can implement the recommendations of the AAIB, if they see fit.
The police are there to establish the facts on behalf of the CPS, some of which will need to come from the AAIB as they are the only ones with those facts.
The CPS decide if the law has been broken based on the facts provided by the police and if it is in the public interest to charge anyone.
However, what happens if the AAIB during the course of an investigation discover that something has been done to the aircraft which was deliberate and therefore put the aircraft/pilot and public into danger (like cutting the brake line on a car, causing the brakes to fail). Do they then have to report the matter to the police and provide the evidence they have found in their investigations, or do they just make a report as normal. After all they are not there to lay blame but must have a duty to report such matters, thereby laying blame.
So if a pilot can be charged if he makes an error that could be deemed reckless, as he should have had the experience and knowledge to know better. Then the same could apply to maintenance were the ground crew should have the experience and knowledge to know better and therefore could be charged too.
After all it is now common practice to charge doctors for failures in noticing patients symptoms and warning signs that lead to their deaths. The same logical thinking could be applied in aircraft 'incidents'.
The CAA have the powers that can implement the recommendations of the AAIB, if they see fit.
The police are there to establish the facts on behalf of the CPS, some of which will need to come from the AAIB as they are the only ones with those facts.
The CPS decide if the law has been broken based on the facts provided by the police and if it is in the public interest to charge anyone.
However, what happens if the AAIB during the course of an investigation discover that something has been done to the aircraft which was deliberate and therefore put the aircraft/pilot and public into danger (like cutting the brake line on a car, causing the brakes to fail). Do they then have to report the matter to the police and provide the evidence they have found in their investigations, or do they just make a report as normal. After all they are not there to lay blame but must have a duty to report such matters, thereby laying blame.
So if a pilot can be charged if he makes an error that could be deemed reckless, as he should have had the experience and knowledge to know better. Then the same could apply to maintenance were the ground crew should have the experience and knowledge to know better and therefore could be charged too.
After all it is now common practice to charge doctors for failures in noticing patients symptoms and warning signs that lead to their deaths. The same logical thinking could be applied in aircraft 'incidents'.
However, what happens if the AAIB during the course of an investigation discover that something has been done to the aircraft which was deliberate and therefore put the aircraft/pilot and public into danger (like cutting the brake line on a car, causing the brakes to fail). Do they then have to report the matter to the police and provide the evidence they have found in their investigations,
The classic example of that is Lockerby. AAIB quickly identified that a crime had been committed - a bomb on board. They then handed the investigation *leadership* over to the Scottish police, whilst continuing to be actively involved throughout in an expert supporting role.
G
Report on Shoreham Airshow disaster delayed for two months (From The Argus)
I see the head of communications is earning his keep with the wealth of information around the reasons for delay.
We have been talking recently about the need to keep flight safety front and centre in these matters yet despite a host of changes to regulation no actual cause has been communicated. Utterly bizarre.
I see the head of communications is earning his keep with the wealth of information around the reasons for delay.
We have been talking recently about the need to keep flight safety front and centre in these matters yet despite a host of changes to regulation no actual cause has been communicated. Utterly bizarre.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't referring to malicious intent like a bomb. I was referring to carrying out maintenance and not taking into account or ignoring the full implications. Surely that could be deemed then as manslaughter too and therefore is a criminal act, which the AAIB would have to report and hand the investigation over to the police. But I can't remember any case were this has happened before normally it has been a failure with maintenance procedures with a recommendation by the AAIB.
The police have only got about 3rd of the factual information, they obviously need to cross reference and check other statements from various parties, whom they may then wish to interview too. They do not have access to the supporting cockpit footage/audio nor have they had access to the aircraft and the ability/expertise to inspect it or the books.
Lets hope it is all settled in the next few months.
The police have only got about 3rd of the factual information, they obviously need to cross reference and check other statements from various parties, whom they may then wish to interview too. They do not have access to the supporting cockpit footage/audio nor have they had access to the aircraft and the ability/expertise to inspect it or the books.
Lets hope it is all settled in the next few months.
It is only deemed a criminal act if found to be so by a court of law; a deliberate malicious act is in a different category only insofar as it is intentional, but even then, it's still only technically that after a court has said so.
But: bomb - it's clear there was a criminal act (whether proven in court or not), the question is by whom; maintenance error - it's clear that there was an error, and probably by whom, but not whether it was a criminal act. If AAIB start making anything other than the most clearcut judgements (basically if they judge anything less clearcut than a bomb blast to be a criminal act), they are making judgements they really shouldn't and confusing their role.
It seems to me therefore unreasonable to expect AAIB and the police to gather the same evidence, and in the same way. The two bodies have different objectives (neither of which, technically, is a detailed report on the causes of the accident - although both may to some extent do so). One is there to decide if there are recommendations that can be issued to prevent future accidents, the other is there to decide of they believe that a crime has been committed, and if so to present a case for prosecution.
Given that, it's appropriate that they each gather their own evidence, and that some form of legal process is there before one releases data to the other as they were gathered under different pretexts.
G
But: bomb - it's clear there was a criminal act (whether proven in court or not), the question is by whom; maintenance error - it's clear that there was an error, and probably by whom, but not whether it was a criminal act. If AAIB start making anything other than the most clearcut judgements (basically if they judge anything less clearcut than a bomb blast to be a criminal act), they are making judgements they really shouldn't and confusing their role.
It seems to me therefore unreasonable to expect AAIB and the police to gather the same evidence, and in the same way. The two bodies have different objectives (neither of which, technically, is a detailed report on the causes of the accident - although both may to some extent do so). One is there to decide if there are recommendations that can be issued to prevent future accidents, the other is there to decide of they believe that a crime has been committed, and if so to present a case for prosecution.
Given that, it's appropriate that they each gather their own evidence, and that some form of legal process is there before one releases data to the other as they were gathered under different pretexts.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 30th Jul 2016 at 15:12.
