Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham

[sharksandwich]

Andy Hill reported discharged from hospital:Shoreham air disaster pilot Andy Hill is seen for the first time since he left hospital | Daily Mail Online

[dsc810]

@Downwind Lander.

All Hunters in the UK are currently grounded by the CAA withdrawing their permits to fly so there is no urgency to issue anything.

A recent appeal court decision in 2013 relating to a fatal in 2011 confirmed that AAIB reports are admissible as evidence in any court proceedings.
I think we can safely say that one way or another this accident will result in court cases.
So I would advise the pilot to say nothing whatsoever to either the AAIB or the police without professional legal representation....who of course may advise him to continue to say nothing whatsoever on a permanent basis.

[snapper1]

Not all Hunters in the UK are grounded by the CAA. Those owned and operated by Hawker Hunter Aviation which are on the military register are still flying.

[Legalapproach]

A recent appeal court decision in 2013 relating to a fatal in 2011 confirmed that AAIB reports are admissible as evidence in any court proceedings.
I think we can safely say that one way or another this accident will result in court cases.

Without wishing to appear pedantic, at present an AAIB report is not admissible in "any court proceedings" - the decision related to civil proceedings not to criminal prosecutions. But you are still correct to suggest legal representation during either AAIB or Police interviews.

[Pittsextra]

Question because I don't know, so don't shoot the messenger.

When you say :-

But you are still correct to suggest legal representation during either AAIB or Police interviews

Are AAIB interviews conducted with the same regard to something like PACE as a Police interview? Plus of course whilst the "pilot" maybe easily indentified all of the other interviews are conducted maintaining anonymity so you wouldn't even know who had said what.

If that is the case my feeling would be that whilst matters of fact might be relevant in an AAIB report (i.e. it was a Boeing 737, it was 18oC, it was 1000ft, the pilot had a licence - which any other report into the facts should surely find the same information and so it would be silly to make issue over?? no?) I'm not sure how you'd treat statements given in interview given the method of how that dialogue was recorded and subsequently processed.

[worrab]

I'm sure I'm not alone in viewing with dismay the admission of an AAIB report as evidence in a court of law. There have been a number of accidents over the years where if the pilot had done something else the accident wouldn't have occurred or as a certain type of lawyer may view it "the pilot was negligent". These are now likely to be reported in a much less detailed and therefore less helpful way in the future.

[Mach Jump]

I'm sure I'm not alone in viewing with dismay the admission of an AAIB report as evidence in a court of law.

You are certainly not alone in that view.

Beyond the basic, bare bones minimum required for an MOR, I wouldn't blame any pilot, now, for refusing to make any statement at all to the AAIB, or the Police.


MJ

[Hebog]

AAIB and Police investigations

I would expect the following as quoted by the AAIB on their report applies


AAIB investigations are conducted in accordance with Annex 13 to the ICAO Convention on International Civil Aviation,


EU Regulation No 996/2010 and The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996.


The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations is the prevention of future


accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability.


Accordingly, it is inappropriate that AAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame or determine liability, since


neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose.


Extracts may be published without specific permission providing that the source is duly acknowledged, the material


is reproduced accurately and is not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context.


Therefore, I assume that the police are carrying out an investigation themselves but may use if permitted the AAIB as an expert witness, if the matter does proceed to a court case. I doubt that another expert witness will be as reliable and will be able to carry out such a through investigation as the AAIB do.


Regarding interviews the Police may permit the AAIB to be present in the interview, as it will be recorded to allow the CPS to decide if they will prosecute if a criminal act has occurred. Alternatively, the police may request a copy of a signed statement from the AAIB confirming the details provided to them by the pilot.


I note that the AAIB report states 'no reported defects' 'aircraft appeared to respond to pilots input controls' 'max alt recorded was 2600ft amsl but this may not have been the peak altitude' but they still have to examine the aircraft, examine maintenance records, condition before the accident, operation of the aircraft plus investigate the ATC recordings, audio recordings from the cameras, footage onboard still to be analysed in more detail.


This means that there is no clear indication as to why it crashed as yet. They have not ruled out a fault with the aircraft or ruled out pilot error either.

[exuw]

Mr Hebog,

As an aged PPRuNer approaching terminal decrepitude and consequent decay of faculties, I have to ask what is the point of your posting a contribution to this thread in such small point print?

It just makes it so hard to read and therefore possibly to appreciate your contribution to the debate.

Perhaps you might consider re-sizing your post upwards much in the same way that many others are asked to re-size their pictures downwards to fit the page.

[Echo Romeo]

I don't see the point of Hebogs post. Theres absolutely nothing in it that everyone didn't already know.

[Hebog]

Not clear to everyone

Sorry but I for one for was finding it confusing as some were stating that AAIB reports had been used and some stating why should AAIB report be used in a court. Others were also querying who should interview the pilot, engineers past and present etc.


I was just trying to point out that the AAIB are investigating for totally different reasons than the Police are so both will have a total different outcome for everyone involved - pilot, engineers, victims and families. I hope that sensibly they will do a joint interviews so to save extra pain for those involved but who knows, as this is not a common occurrence after all. I can't recall in my 70 years of any plane crashes onto public highways that also killed road users. So the procedures for both the AAIB and Police will be something new and they will not want to compromise each others investigations.


As for the small print. I apologise but I copied and pasted the AAIB report bit as my aged fingers can't type too much now. I tend to use the enlarge button when my aged sight doesn't see as well on some websites.

[118.9]

Originally Posted by Hebog

Regarding interviews the Police may permit the AAIB to be present in the interview, as it will be recorded to allow the CPS to decide if they will prosecute if a criminal act has occurred.

This tragedy was first and and foremost an accident, so in my humble opinion it is highly unlikely to go to criminal court. As part of the normal inquest process where there has been accidental loss of life, the police must investigate. And like the AAIB report, the inquest will not apportion blame.

[mrangryofwarlingham]

Highly unlikely? You've already determined there was no negligence from the pilot ? I assume you've written to the police then with details of your findings.
For me, given the sad state of my CPS politics, and how they answer the tests of whether it is in the public interest to have a prosecution, and whether they think they can secure a conviction, I personally would not be surprised to see this end up in both the civil and criminal courts.
And no, I have no evidence about the tragic event to say what the cause was. So my mind is open as to the eventual findings, but the preliminary AAIB bulletin suggests no obvious problem with the plane.

[Downwind Lander]

Hebog asserts in #618:
"As for the small print. I apologise but I copied and pasted the AAIB report bit as my aged fingers can't type too much now. I tend to use the enlarge button when my aged sight doesn't see as well on some websites".

The answer may lie in your aged eyes being assisted by a pair of new glasses prescribed for the distance to your computer (i.e. not standard reading glasses) so that your aged fovea centralis, rather than the rest of the retina, can do its job.

[9 lives]

This tragedy was first and and foremost an accident, so in my humble opinion it is highly unlikely to go to criminal court.

Honest question:

Does characterizing an unhappy event as an accident have the affect of insulating the person at the center from criminal prosecution? I have no doubt that the pilot had no intention of inflicting any injury or damage whatever, but did he do enough to prevent such an occurrence (I don't know, I'm just posing the question). If I stray across the highway centerline and cause an accident, could I be guilty of a criminal offense? Or was it just an accident?

[Legalapproach]

Characterizing an unhappy event as an accident does not prevent a person being taken to court. What is the cause of the accident? If caused by negligence or recklessness then a prosecution is likely to ensue.

[Genghis the Engineer]

More accurately, if the CPS or CAA think that there has been recklessness or negligence. It's up to a court to decide if they are right.

But yes, I have been in court as a witness in such a case, and it certainly does happen.

G

[118.9]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

More accurately, if the CPS or CAA think that there has been recklessness or negligence. It's up to a court to decide if they are right.
But yes, I have been in court as a witness in such a case, and it certainly does happen.

Perhaps not the appropriate Thread for this discussion, but are there any case studies involving a similar type of aviation accident where the court pinned either recklessness or negligence on the owner or pilot?
The standard of proof shown in court must be beyond a reasonable doubt, which surely makes it extremely difficult to prove recklessness and almost as difficult to prove negligence, especially in a high stress situation such as an airshow?

[9 lives]

which surely makes it extremely difficult to prove recklessness and almost as difficult to prove negligence, especially in a high stress situation such as an airshow?

Random thoughts on my part, not incident specific...

I would not view an airshow performance as being "high stress", if properly planned and executed, I would think it more precision demanding. If a public or otherwise demanding aircraft operation is "high stress" for a pilot, perhaps that pilot should either not be flying it, or should be doing so with a greater "box" size for safety. When I have displayed aircraft, I have done so with precision, in the "box" I had planned, with no particular stress at all - just fly the plan. Now if something goes bang quit, the stress level goes way up, but there should still be a plan for that, so there's no guessing, just executing a new plan on short notice.

If an airshow box for display is appropriate to the plane, pilot and environment, I think the pilot should fly the box without difficulty nor stress. If we all agree that the box, the plane and the pilot were suitable, the aircraft remains airworthy, exiting the box unplanned should trigger the need for an explanation. If exiting the box in the wrong way (caused harm), I can see that being an indicator of recklessness or negligence - either in flying the box, or planning and agreeing to fly in it.

We pilots have a public image to maintain - not the Ace McCool white scarf thing, but the deliberate, planned safe execution of any flight, with planned room for a minor unplanned event, and an escape path for a big event. These sad events should serve as a reminder to us that we always must do that well - to protect the public from the effects of what we do....

[Hebog]

'The standard of proof shown in court must be beyond a reasonable doubt, which surely makes it extremely difficult to prove recklessness and almost as difficult to prove negligence, especially in a high stress situation such as an airshow? '


Depends who has been negligent and what their relation was to the aircraft. Obviously a pilot error/misjudgement more difficult than maybe an error with maintenance that has bee negligent.


The AAIB report states there were no reported faults. Do all faults get reported/recorded? I personally would hope they do and would also hope that repairs are carried out correctly.


I am assuming it will take the AAIB several months to reconstruct the aircraft and check it thoroughly for any failures.