Pittsextra
Relevant information will be provided in the accident report. The AAIB's sole objective (in common with equivalent bodies around the world) is the prevention of future aviation accidents and incidents. That is why it makes safety recommendations.
Reports include, to the extent that it is possible to do so, the AAIB's findings concerning the cause(s) and contributory cause(s) of accidents/incidents.
'Causes' in this context means actions, omissions, events, conditions, or a combination thereof, which led to an accident or incident.

I could but I won't. My posts in both threads have been, and will continue to be, general.
I will not express opinions about the Shoreham matter.

For the reasons given in my previous answer, I do not accept that your 'flight safety' argument is valid. The AAIB will issue a Report as soon as it is in a position to do so. Accuracy is more important than speed.
Further, given the nature of your previous comments in both threads, I also have doubts (to say the least) about whether that is actually the reason you are in favour of disclosure.

If you mean a debate about AAIB disclosure generally and/or the use of AAIB reports for a purpose for which they are not intended, yes. But not, in my view, in a thread relating to a current investigation.

I did not give it as an example. I referred (in the other Hunter thread) to an important Court of Appeal decision of legal principle regarding the use of AAIB reports in civil proceedings. It was decision with far-reaching implications. The civil proceedings which ultimately led to that decision happened to begin with the crash of a Tiger Moth.

You continue, whether intentionally or innocently, to confuse two separate issues.So it appears.
I repeat what I said in post 1504 of the other thread when, after one final attempt, I gave up trying to explain it to you:There's none so blind as those who will not see. (Old proverb.)

.

In trying to take an objective look at the discussion here, it appears that some "probing of principles" is beginning to repeat itself. That's not to say that the probing has or lacks merit, but it is beginning to lack originality. There seems to be a fair amount of asked and answered" now - thank you to those who have provided patient answers, perhaps more than once. When the AAIB report is issued, there will be lots to discuss, based upon objective report content. I look forward to an informed discussion then.

In the mean time, have we any new themes? Or might this topic take a voluntary relax? Thoughts on this welcomed....

Pilot DAR, I agree completely, a rest until the final AAIB report is published would be a good thing.


Thank you to Flying Lawyer, Lomcevak, et al, for their excellent measured and informed responses on both threads.

FL - for some reason some posts have been deleted, one of which you quote and the context of which is clear from that post.

So when you say:-

Care to explain what my motives are? What element of what I've posted on this thread or similar has been so far away from what subsequently gets established? I might say that had anyone posted what was the press release from BADA and Air Pilots a few months ago would have been similarly flamed, yet for some reason criticism from others is wrong.

and

Except you wanted me to comment upon the specific matter in a post that got deleted, my reply was deleted yet you still quote part of that post... hmm.

Indeed.

Pittsextra I don't understand what you mean.
Where have I quoted from a post of yours that has been deleted? :confused:

With one exception (the last), every quote in my response to you in post 908 comes from your post 905.
Your post 905 is still visible to me. Can you not see it?
The last quote was what I said in the main Hunter thread when I eventually gave up responding to you. ie I was quoting myself, not you.

I'll keep my suspicions to myself.
If you mean concerning the crash then I can't comment because I stopped reading your various opinions/theories some time ago.

My responses to you have not related to the crash but to AAIB accident investigation procedures, the law restricting disclosure of material obtained by the AAIB, the use of accident reports for a purpose for which they are not intended and (in the main thread) trying unsuccessfully to explain the significance of an important Court of Appeal decision to you. Almost everything you've said about those aspects has been wrong.

The press release from BADA/the Air Pilots was discussed in the main thread. If it was also discussed here, then I missed it.

I was interested to know your views.
My post is still there, as is your reply. Posts 897 & 898.
Can you not see them?
Perhaps a browser problem?
Where have I quoted from your reply? :confused:

Pittsextra
Further to my comment in my post last night: I should have added that I have quickly scanned some others since then, when prompted by a post from someone with relevant expertise responding to some of your opinions/theories. I have done so in order to understand - and learn from - the exchanges.


Just out of curiosity, I looked this morning to see how many times you have posted your opinions relating to the Shoreham crash. (A quick exercise - it's a facility available under every poster's profile.) The total was even more than I thought - I stopped counting at 100!
In stark contrast, those with relevant expertise have posted only a small fraction of that number. Worth reflecting upon?

You cannot fail to have noticed that you irritated people in the Hunter thread in the Mil Forum - which ceased to be active some time ago pending further information from the AAIB. Of course there will be differences of opinion in any discussion but, in your case, a recurring complaint/criticism was that you refused to listen even when those with relevant expertise (often professional expertise in that forum) took the time to explain points to you.

You have occasionally appeared to acknowledge that your posts irritate people. Have you considered the possibility that the blame may lie with you? That your approach and attitude might be the cause?
Like you, I am a PPL. Over the years, I have often asked questions in various PPRuNe forums in order to learn from those with relevant expertise. In stark contrast, I have without exception received courteous and helpful responses. So have numerous others.

Similarly, over the years I have explained many matters in areas where I have expertise. I can't say 'never' because I've been posting for about 15 years, but I can't remember encountering anyone so resistant to reconsidering their opinions in such circumstances. You are, of course, entitled to reject what I say about matters where I have expertise and decades of experience. I'm content for readers to decide for themselves which source they regard as the more informed and reliable.

Whoa fellows! I see the passion, but it's drifting off topic here. There is a lot of expertise, and experience, and we appreciate that, but how about we appreciate it on topic.

I've started another thread for that topic, and invite you there with your passion and wisdom. May we please rest this thread until some on topic discussion of new relevant information is possible?

FL - Perhaps we can debate camera element on the other thread and park this one. You are right I think the deleted post view was from a different computer - not sure why - so my apologies there as it looked odd.

To reply however to this type of stuff, if I may.

Of the many posts some seem to be arguing for the simple sake of it and yes I have been guilty of that - but frankly I think in the Mil forum we had 5 pages of back and forth over if what we had seen was a 1/4 clover.

I think we might be more comfortable calling it that now. I also suggested that these things shouldn't be a mystery - although we now know that the reason the display director couldn't give that colour earlier was that he had no idea what the display sequence was.

I seem to also recall another exchange with some APG63? where he suggested that there was no criticism from the AAIB about the CAA. Once again I think we may have more clarity on that now.

In fact your own view on the CAA more relaxed and then we had this BADA/Air Pilots statement...

I disagreed with you about your view about the meeting at the RAeS and after we kicked that around for a while you later suggested that opinion was indeed divided on the release of certain information.

Then we have had all this "have you flown a Hunter? flown a jet? You post about accidents, what are your motivations, they are not about flight safety... etc etc.

Except I'm not sure what is causing so much stress. I suggested about 18 months ago that CHC were in a bad spot and someone ranted that he'd been at a facility of theirs at the time and they all had new uniforms so that meant all was well and I was an idiot...

On another thread I got flamed for mentioning about a late CAA review of IFR flying outside controlled airspace which they themselves set an 1st Oct 2015 date for publication. Have you seen that yet?

And so it goes on.

In the later stages of this thread you asked me if and why about the release of the Go-Pro footage, nothing in that reply was ambiguous, nothing in that reply needed to relate to Chicago conventions (because it was my opinion that you asked for) and nothing in that reply needed suggestion that I didn't listen. In fact even having given you my own 7 reasons (that you asked for) you then suggest that you doubt those are my real reasons!?

Sure you will have a far superior knowledge of the law and how that relates to aviation. Yet the law isn't going to give us the reason for why this aircraft crashed, nor can it justify the poor process(s) that have so far been uncovered and questioning things that seem to be odd is no bad thing. Happy to wait for the final report and readers will decide what has been informed/reliable.

I disagree with many of your wide-ranging assertions but don't think any useful purpose would be served by prolonging this exchange.

I agree.
I have never suggested otherwise.

And that..... is not the last word on this topic, but is the beginning of an intermission, pending new public information being presented.

The CAA has just issued its Follow-up Action on Occurrence Report, on the Shoreham accident, which seems to me to be generally laudable, although experts in air displays may quibble with some of it, I don't know.

The last paragraph gives me a lot of hope for the future, because it seems that simple common-sense has taken charge;

I have only now waded in to this discussion but the public perception is that those flying ex military war birds or wealthy boys toys need to be controlled.

Flying the sort of hardware involved in this accident is way beyond the normal risk assessment of a light aircraft however it almost comes in to that area in terms of pilot and airframe capability.

Joe Bloggs can go out an buy an ex military aircraft and fly it on a PPL with little or no restriction.

Despite the high value of these airframes and their display capabilites there appears in recent accidents to be a lack of control risk and experience.

So where does this leave innocent people on the ground?

I am all for keeping these airframes flying but see little purpose in anything more than a low level safe flypast.

The above may or may not be relevant to the accident that is the subject of this thread, we will see, but since you have posted this comment on the Shoreham thread, rather than elsewhere, can I take it you are aware of the Shoreham accident pilot's background, experience level and licence held?

There are two aspects to airshow safety management.

(1) Minimising the risk of a crash.

(2) Ensuring that if that crash ever does happen, it does not affect anybody on the ground.

This is built around the understanding that airshow pilots are knowing participants who understand and accept the risks involved in what they're going.


Historically, and rightly in most people's opinions, (1) is minimised but can't be eliminated completely. (2) Should be eliminated completely, as no "innocent bystander" should be subject to risk of loss of life due to an activity they have no understanding of or control over.

Where Shoreham went horribly wrong, is that (2) failed. NOT that there was a crash - albeit that there are clearly lessons to be learned from it, but there have been crashes before and the odds are that there will be crashes again. But virtually all of those other crashes did not kill uninformed bystanders.

In many ways it reads to me that the failing at Shoreham was not because the rules were lax, but that the existing rules weren't applied as fully as they should have been. However, it also caused a review of everything, and in the CAA's perception, gaps were identified and closed; others may disagree with the detail of the perception, but I don't think that anybody's disagreeing that Shoreham should have been prevented by some aspect of better airshow management.

A high energy show at low level in a vintage warbird is a very thrilling thing to watch, in part because of the risky nature of the activity. That should be an acceptable activity, but only where the pilot's is the only life at risk when doing it.

G

(2) Should, not must - for the reasons you say. It should certainly be the aspiration.

Regarding airshow management - that is certainly the conclusion of the second interim report by AAIB, and I've not heard anybody make any serious criticisms of that report. That was the basis for my statement - although I certainly mean management in the widest possible sense, not any particular individual(s).

G

Good posts Genghis! Yet I am still uneasy that a key point is being missed somewhere. We know from CAP 403 that risk assessment uses the formula Risk = severity of risk x likelihood of occurrence.
Severity, in the event of a crash, runs from potential minor injury (score 1) to multiple deaths (5). Likelihood runs from highly unlikely (1) through possible (3) to highly likely (5). So using CAA's example scenario where a crash could cause 'bystander' casualties, you might have severity at 5 x likelihood at 1 = 5. But if you close a road where non-paying guests might be gathered, you may mitigate the risk down to 2 (very low risk).
Yet, although the pilot's DA must have the box ticked recommending 'loops and barrel rolls in ex-military aircraft' signed off by the examiner, the risk assessment is benign here. I argue that the the risk-likelihood of downward vertical manoeuvres in high inertia jets should be rated as at least possible, especially if the entry height is low, and there are plenty of sad examples around the world to back this up.
If the risk cannot be mitigated sufficiently, then remove the manoeuvre from the sequence.

The recent report reminds me of the expectation that responsible participants in an event, will apply there best thinking to mitigate negative outcome. The investigation into the fatal fire in Apollo 1 included the concept of "failure of imagination". Witnesses being interviewed stated that the accident was a failure of imagination - they did not think far enough outside the core of what they were doing to imagine the possible bad outcomes. They were qualified and able to think [imagine] that, just did not.

As aviation professionals, it is our responsibility to think as far ahead and wide as our minds allow, as to what occurrence, or combination of events could come together to cause bad - and then act to prevent, or at least mitigate that. Every now and again, events occur in society, which in hind sight, could have been reasonably imagined, and at least mitigated. Such events serve to remind we aviation professionals to do better. This was such an event.

118.9 - thanks.

On the specifics of risk assessment, this phrase jumped out at me in the AAIB second interim report:-

The discussion expands then at great length, but basically what it says is that a generic risk assessment was used at Shoreham, that didn't take detailed account of the nature of the aeroplanes and manoeuvres in the display.

G

Closing roads can have other consequences when large amounts of traffic is then sent on less suitable routes.

Following this crash a diversion was set up as the road was closed
Three days later a fatality occurred on the diversion route.
Here is one link to the "incident".
Man killed in crash on Shoreham diversion road | UK | News | Daily Express

We all know that generic risk assessment is a contradiction. An extreme (and silly) example would be using the same risk calculation for, say, a Tiger Moth at 1 800 lbs/loop entry speed 100kt, as for a T7 at 18 000 lbs and 400kt.

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.

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".

Well, hell. That's not good.

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.

I don't think that is a given.

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.

The story development is that Police asked the court to require AAIB to hand over material collected for the purpose of the crash investigation.

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.

akaSylviaAn 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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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:

• 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.

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

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'.

I can't quote chapter and verse, but my understanding is that if AAIB consider that a crime has been committed, it ceases to be an accident investigation and becomes a criminal investigation which they hand over leadership to the police.

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 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.

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