Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

[The Old Fat One]

D SQDRN 97th IOTC, I would guess your knowledge of the law well exceeds mine and I was not looking for a debate. My point is a simple one (and primarily intuitive + school of life informed).

Were I a gambling man, I would give pretty decent odds that the pilot will not face a prosecution.

I've been known to be wrong....many times.

[Chronus]

Originally Posted by D SQDRN 97th IOTC

And I have tried to assist in the understanding of process relevant to this incident.

In any event, I will step down from this thread. I see very limited benefit in it staying open until further information is available.

Perhaps before you step down from the box could you enlighten us on the recent High Court hearing of the application by the police for access to evidence held by AAIB. The only information available at present is that the judges have "reserved judgement". Now what does that mean. Would it be right to guess that they are in deep contemplation about the verdict. The matter must surely be of interest, given that the police are looking for evidence to prosecute and should their win their day in court, then the chances are that some sort of charges are likely follow shortly soon after.

[9 lives]

the application by the police for access to evidence held by AAIB

With my very modest understanding of investigative matters, I understand that both the AAIB and the police are to act within their mandates and to act in the interest of the public. And there's only one "the public" as I see it. Therefore, ultimately though perhaps approached from different directions, I would hope that the single public interest can be defined, and supported in the efforts of both entities.

The AAIB meets the public interest while not appointing blame. The police support the greater public interest of investigating events which might have a criminal offense involved, while maintaining that innocence exists unless guilt is proven.

The public interest is not, or less met, if safety is not advanced, if innocent persons are falsely prosecuted, or if people guilty of an offense against law are overlooked.

[Gliderboy1]

Concerning how police involved

I'm interested in aviation and live in the area and was at Shoreham on the day.

What is really concerning me is about how Sussex police have made an application to the high court for priviliged documents and info including cockpit footage from the AAIB in so far as their own manslaughter investigations against the pilot Andy Hill. In so doing the police have to pursue the Secretary of State for transport legally. A bizarre situation.

I'm highly worried about this as the AAIB are the authority on investigating the accident, above the police obviously. If the police are successful in obtaining this information which enables them to follow through with their investigation and maybe take a certain course of action or decide on such action now, with the AAIB report or judgements in abeyance, that the police may directly or indirectly (from other government departments) have undue influence on the AAIB report outcomes. It could involve other government departments too. It just isn't right for me and I wouldn't be surprised if we have interference from too many vested interests in governments departments and organisations, that potentially a political and hidden judgement is made so far as causation of the accident in AAIB reports.

It's right the AAIB work entirely independently free of fear of consequences, then the police decide on criminal actions. The families of the victims would understand. This should then allow a view on the requisite levels of considered criminal negligence in manslaughter to decide what happens with a case against the pilot, if at all . I just wouldn't trust the police making judgements to pursue the pilot (with a case to the cps) backed up by the level of public angst of how it was ever possible this accident came about, someone looking for an easy scapegoat (the pilot) and politicians playing lip service to this.

The police have high instances of corruption and I really don't trust their meddling when irrespective of use of AAIB reports in criminal cases, if possible - effectively two parallel enquiries are on going seperately by two government departments with no wish to contradict, which it will be very hard not too.

Aviation accidents are caused by many factors normally and I just don't see how the pilot could ever be criminally responsible. But with officiousness of the police on his heels it wouldn't be too hard I doubt for them to present a case to the cps to prosecute. On the other hand the AAIB report is likely to mention many aspects to the accident, and it's right that Mr Hill is given the opportunity for the more independent AAIB and not police to act freely in the first instance. The worrying this is the police will have to take advice on causes etc, and the AAIB are the authority anyway, so this backs up my argument.

[Jonzarno]

I just don't see how the pilot could ever be criminally responsible.

I don't see why not: for example a pilot might knowingly fly an aircraft with a technical fault, or deliberately exceed the design limitations and, as a direct result, cause an accident resulting in death or injury. I think that would justify a charge of manslaughter.

For clarity: that comment is made as a general point only and is specifically NOT in connection with this awful accident about which I know only what I have read here.

[JEM60]

Gliderboy. If you made a mistake in driving a car, and killed 11 people as a result of that mistake, then you would be in serious trouble. Flying an aircraft, and making a mistake resulting in 11 deaths, then surely it's not difficult to realise that the same penalties will apply.

[Chronus]

Glider Boy 1 as a person interested in aviation and making a remark as to how a pilot could ever be held criminally responsible wishes to be informed about the matter.

Here are two incidents which may offer some explanation and clarity to him.

Gol Lineas Aeras 737 Brazil mid air with a Embraer Legacy in 2006. The pilots of the Legacy were convicted on criminal charges.

The sad case of Captain Glen Stewart`s criminal conviction as a result of the incident on approach to Heathrow in 1989.

Both the above are well documented and full details are available on the internet.

Pilots, both private and professional, flying for recreational purpose or hire and reward carry a heavy burden of responsibility. It is a well known and often spoken proverb that flying whilst being the safest mode of transport is also the least forgiving of error of any kind whatsoever.

[Bergerie1]

Glen Stewart should never have been prosecuted, the CAA made a great mistake when they decided to do so.

[H Peacock]

Glen Stewart should never have been prosecuted, the CAA made a great mistake when they decided to do so.

Spot on Bergerie1, it was a travesty. BA's handling of the whole affair was also dreadfully incompetent.

[Never Fretter]

Jem60

The difference is there is very little new to learn from 'another' road death tragedy.

[Chronus]

All a matter of perspective and roles. For those who have lost dear and loved ones justice must be done. For those who must learn from mistakes and shortcomings an investigation must be carried out and from both we strive for it not to happen again. The price paid for it all is always heavy. Sometimes there are also other innocent victims. In forfeiting his life Captain Glen Stewart became such a victim. Captain Asseline, whose A320 crashed infront of a crowd of spectators , in 1988 at Mulhouse- Habsheim and received a jail sentence for involuntary manslaughter, was another victim.

[tmmorris]

I'm not sure about that, NF - we just don't investigate and learn any more. Latest A34 crash is a case in point (notorious accident black spot for many years but no action taken as yet).

[dsc810]

The A34 is , becasue of the amount of traffic carried a perfectly safe road in terms of the number of people killed per mile per number of vehicle journeys taken.
It is not a 'killer road' and does not feature in any of the most dangerous roads in the UK type professional surveys - though the pile-up do tend to be spectacular, the resulting hold up very lengthy and as a result it is nationally "newsworthy".

The road nearby which IS dangerous as it carries far less traffic but has a very high accident rate for its traffic rate is the Wantage to Hungerford A338.

[Hebog]

If it is as simple as pilot error as everyone is convinced off, as the 1st AAIB report stated 'the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilots control' then why have the CAA not lifted the blanket ban on Hunters flying.
I see no reason if this was the case that they could lift the no flying rule but keep the 'no aerobatics are to be performed and not exceeding xxx speed'. After all the Vulcan was only allowed to 'fly' but no aeros so same principles could be implemented. After all the Vulcan going down would probably do as much if not more damage than the Hunter.
The Gnats are able to fly again, after a sort period. Even the Red Arrows after their bad year with the loss of 2 pilots were not grounded for this length of time.
Think there is more information that the AAIB and the CAA have yet to release, after all they have only covered the basic facts of events on the day, airshow organisation, confirmation as to legality of the aircrafts permit in all their reports. No actual details as to the physical investigation of the aircraft itself has been provided as yet.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

why have the CAA not lifted the blanket ban on Hunters flying.

The Gnats are able to fly again

Perhaps the distinction is because the AAIB report on the Gnat is done, and the one on the Hunter is not. Or perhaps it is due to the relative severity of the two accidents.

The AAIB did a good job on the Gnat report, impressive technical work using the amateur videos to calculate angles of bank and pitch, and all available info to calculate airspeed and altitude.

[Hebog]

Don't think either have anything to do it with it. The Gnat was flying before the report was published. If you go by severity then all Airbus should have been grounded immediately after the Germanwings tragedy but weren't.
At the end of the day if you carry out a risk assessment on a Hunter under new regulation of basic transit flights with no aeros, it would show there is no greater risk than a Boeing 737. After all to establish risk you have to look at the hazard and its severity against the likelihood. In this case yes the hazard could be deemed high (but so could a Boeing 737) but the likelihood provided all the safety measurements are in place such as weather, trained experienced pilot, flight restrictions, good maintenance is low (for both) making this an accepted low risk. After all no flight is ever 100% safe, so if this is the CAA target it will never be achieved.

[Chronus]

This is a safety issue for both,those in the air and those on the ground. Would any pilot having to do an emergency landing choose a busy motorway and risk more lives. If he did, is it likely to lead to a criminal prosecution.
In this instance it remains to be determined whether after the failed aerobatic manoeuvre the pilot knew or should have known that his course was taking him towards a busy public highway and had the means to avoid it. In the event that no technical fault or malfunction affected the aircraft, then the only outcome can be that the aerobatic manoeuvre was not carried out with all the adequate planning required and generous margins for all unforeseen events and circumstances involved.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

If you go by severity then all Airbus should have been grounded immediately after the Germanwings tragedy but weren't.

There's a couple of important distinctions between the Germanwings and Hunter tragedies, and between the grounding of all Hunters and grounding of all Airbus A320-211's. They seem obvious to me, aren't they obvious to you?

If you're getting at the idea that political realities are the reason Hunters are still grounded, you may be right. That's life.

[The Old Fat One]

Fairly tidy little summary of where all the investigation are at, timewise

Silence marks Shoreham air disaster first anniversary - BBC News

with insurance details here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-37121498

[Hebog]

No more info than has already been available for months in regards to the investigation. Why does it take 3 highly respectable judges nearly 3 months to decide if the Police can have info from the AAIB. Surely that should be decided much quicker given the circumstances or are they are awaiting the AAIB investigation to be finalised. If so, they are then deciding on behalf of the CPS if there is case or not which is also wrong.