Accident reports from decades ago and/or other parts of the world have little relevance in this case. From published reports the evidence is abundant, and will be conclusive. This is a high-profile incident, I'm confident that the AAIB will be thorough and unbiased.

Sorry to repeat the point, but I think it's extremely important.

It's not AAIB's job to explain this accident. Even more importantly, it's not AAIB's to allocate responsibility.

It's AAIB's job to produce recommendations which, if followed properly, should prevent future accidents.

Of course, yes, AAIB have to go a long way towards understanding this accident so that they can produce the best possible recommendations - but for AAIB that is a means to an end, and not their primary objective. Or should be if they're doing their job properly - and I've seen and heard nothing to suggest that they're not with regard to Shoreham.

G

PrivtPilotRadarTech

You keep coming back to say "speaks volumes"

I'm with you now. Can you turn the volume down to your nonsensical posts please. Thanks :ok:

Happily, as neither poster has any idea of my skills and experience as either a pilot or a firefigher, the only basis upon which to write and repeat this would be as a personal jab, rather than introducing any clarity to the discussion. Jab taken, opinion unchanged.

I have no idea what understanding the quoted poster has about G's legal knowledge and experience. I myself have none, so I do not comment G's legal skills. But, to be clear, there is no prerequisite for legal knowledge to participate in these aviation forums, beyond an understanding and acceptance of the PPRuNe rules about posting. If a poster who additionally has legal skills would like to politely and objectively enlighten us on legal matters pertaining to aviation, I'm sure we would be the better for it!

In the mean time, posters are also entitled to their opinions, expressed within the rules. Personally, it will interest me in the future to learn from AAIB findings of this sad event, and consider them in the context of my aerobatic, and general flying experience.

Genghis: I just looked at a random AAIB report to refresh my memory. It had a section labeled "Conclusions" with a subsection labeled "Findings". One of the findings in this particular report, for example, was this: "The pilot flying did not follow the instructions of the flight director and continued the descent." I'll be quite interested in reading that part of the Shoreham report, and I expect it will be thorough and unbiased. I'm sure I'll gain a good understanding of how the Hunter ended up flying into the ground, and having some experience with human nature, I'm sure the findings will make some nameless people feel like responsibility has been allocated to them.

Sure, that's not the AAIB's intention, but that's the real-world effect of laying out their findings.

Step Turn As frequently demonstrated, there is no prerequisite for any knowledge to participate in these forums.

Apart from a relatively short self-imposed break some years ago, I have been enlightening Pruners about legal matters for about 16 years.
I usually do so politely and always objectively.

True.
Some posters choose not to express opinions on topics about which they have no knowledge and, unfortunately, some don't.

(Genghis: That is merely a general observation.)

And indeed true - but equally, expressing an opinion from partial knowledge is sometimes a precursor to interesting conversation from which everybody can, should they wish, learn.

G

Step Turn

Quote
"If a poster who additionally has legal skills would like to politely and objectively enlighten us on legal matters pertaining to aviation, I'm sure we would be the better for it!"

and

"opinion unchanged."

I nearly did in the Maule thread, but the evidence I had before before me was that no matter what I had said, your opinion would remain unchanged, and that has been evidenced again here.




PrivtPilotRadarTech

Quote
"It wouldn't matter to me if he were my own brother, or the Dalai Lama"

and

"and having some experience with human nature"

Really?!

I think we have seen and heard enough about you to be thankful that your little experience here will have no lasting impact upon us.

I had already asked you nicely and politely to turn the volume down but you've come back with more tosh. Now having the knowledge that you do have some, albeit limited experience, I guess we're going to keep hearing from you anyway.

Is any of the last page of this thread at all relevant to the topic? It seems to me to be mostly 5 people bickering.

The thread will have to be closed if it continues, or thread bans liberally distributed.

Back on topic, please.

SD

Hear, hear Genghis.

FL - Should Go-Pro footage be treated in the same way as other commercial flight data recording equipment from a legal perspective?

Go-Pro footage will be inadmissible.

Commercial data recording is approved equipment.

Inadmissible where?

For example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-34744459

Not true.

All evidence will be used in an inquiry and may be useable in a legal context. In both however , I would expect the quality and value of the evidence to be actively questioned.

Right at the moment, professionally, I am using airliner flight data recorder data to try and analyse aspects of climate change - the same questions apply there also . It's not validated scientific equipment - so how can I use it to derive data good enough *for the purpose *, and what are the strengths and weaknesses in the context. Unsurprisingly, the scientists I'm working with are every bit as demanding as any air accident investigator or barrister I've ever worked with in that regard.

Similarly, data from phones, uncertified GPS, unqualified observers - all of these are regularly used in accident investigations.

G

The case you quote was admissible evidence insofar as the offender had contravened a road traffic act which was digitally depicted.

I assumed that you were referring to purported Go-Pro footage here.



G,

Any electronic data can be used for your own scientific project if you wish to rely up it.

All and any what may be called "evidence" can be used for an inquiry, but, Go-Pro footage here will not depict any criminal offence. Inadmissible.

JetBlu - I'm struggling to understand the distinction you make.

Are you saying (for example) I could fall foul of motoring laws due to film evidence on a mobile phone but I could not fall foul of any aviation law of evidence from a 'Go-Pro' camera?

No Pitts, fall foul of any law and it could be used.

The point I'm making here is that the purported Go-Pro footage will not depict any criminal offence.

My apologies for not making it clearer.

I think that you are incorrect Jetblu - but by all means prove me wrong if you have a reference for this. So far as I can see , any evidence is admissible but subject to challenge about quality and meaning , in any context - legal , investigative , or scientific.

G

G,

It may have been easier for me to ask you what you think inadmissible could be, but let's work this scenario.....You are alleged to have endangered life by screaming out the end of a runway upon landing and ended up on a carriageway having collided with some cars. Would you think Go-Pro footage depicting you driving to the airfield on that day could/would be used as evidence and held admissible?

Alternatively, you may have a Go-Pro in your cockpit depicting that unfortunate event. How in your professional opinion could a jury decide how much breaking pressure you were applying?

Sorry Jetblu I was confused by your use of the term inadmissible, which I take to mean it is prohibited.

In your illustration above, I'm not sure how realistic it is to video your entire drive to the airfield and then transfer the Go-Pro to your aircraft and film that activity also - although it possibly gives an insight into a narcissistic personality!

Regards braking pressure - they couldn't but what viewers might be able to see is the stability of the final approach and its speed.

What about this scenario - you crash and Go-Pro footage captures the entire flight. The camera is forward facing and shows the picture out of the front of the aircraft and some primary flight instruments are also readable.

Forget court at this stage, would you object to the AAIB giving that footage to the Police?

Because I'm not entirely sure how that differs all that much from Mr 190mph+

It seems to me that attempts to class personal video recordings as flight safety media obfuscates the AAIB's concerns over the use of FDR's etc.

Having a narcissistic personality is not a criminal offence, yet.

Stability or final approach are neither a criminal offence. Neither is speed here.

I do not understand why the police should want to see any footage of any primary flight instruments. Whatever the instruments display, no criminal offence took place.

Mr 190mph is a completely different kettle of fish IMHO.