Is that really a hard question to answer? These are weighty considerations as their rulings can determine case law can they not? I imagine they have a lot of research to do to come to a correct answer. I would also think there are workload considerations - who knows where this sits in their priorities list.

I'd have thought a better question is why is the AAIB report not out? Seems that they would have accumulated everything long ago and they are much more geared to getting their reports out speedily (for good reason).

Hey ho, it takes what it takes and it'll all be out soon enough. Given compensation is already moving forwards, I guess our impatience is of little importance or consequence.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...bs-and-the-cps


This may explain the relationship and the agreement of sharing factual information between AAIB and the police or CPS. Therefore, I am presuming that the police want a copy of statements/interviews, as they should have the all the factual information to date already and shouldn't need a court order.


However, obviously a detailed examination of the wreckage and testing will take some time and this is maybe the part that hasn't been completed yet by the AAIB hence why the final report hasn't been published yet.


Interestingly, this is similar to the Glasgow helicopter incident only difference is that the pilot survived in this case, so could be prosecuted if it was deemed he was acting without due care and consideration and endangering others.

Indeed Hebog, a court order does point to the CPS wanting witness statements, which the AAIB is not permitted to divulge.

Actually I think another major difference is that the Glasgow helicopter pilot was performing his duties in the employment of the Scottish police, therefore vicarious liability applies. I'm pretty sure he would have been immune from prosecution in the same way a military pilot would.

I think vicarious liability ceases to apply if the employee is manifestly breaking the law (ie stolen the aircraft and flying it drunk or some such) but merely making a mistake is nowhere near enough to break the bond of vicarious liaiblity.

I had to learn all this stuff once.

Personally, I've always been struck by the contrast between Shoreham and the Glasgow bin lorry incident, myself.

In the case of the latter the CPS/Police decided no crime had been committed within 48 hours, and despite the evidence that has subsequently emerged, stuck to their position ever since.

Sometimes the law in this country seems incredibly arbitrary and random to me.

Vicarous Liability - interesting area.


However, does it cover if the employee has not carried out safety instructions, could this be deemed as an intentional bad act done by the employee and therefore the employer is not liable. After all the pilot did deliberately ignore the low fuel warning and the relevant procedure. Can the families still bring a civil case against the police?




As to the bin crash, the criminal act wasn't the crash so I can understand why they didn't prosecute. The criminal act was 'Fraud by misrepresentation' on his job application and driving licence and therefore the employer and the DVLA should have brought those claims and he should have been tried for those. Which I believe can carry upto 10yrs in prison.


Also, in the police helicopter incident surely there was a conflict of interest by the Scottish Police as they were investigating themselves.


Lots of grey areas in law which can be exploited by those that can afford to pay those that are clever enough.

I think one of the complexities with Shoreham is that there could be a number of players in the frame. Clearly there is a question mark over the pilot but they may also be looking at organisers, Das and, dare I say it, the regulator.

Of course it is highly likely that many will be seeking legal advice to remedy what they may see is wrong, but that said what has any of it got to do with an AAIB report and flight safety?

That isn't just my own view but the AAIB's view of itself. So at this stage in the process what is the justification for ongoing delays? Surely it is a terrible thing if the view of the investigator is delayed from being made public (read propagated to other pilots) because of external influence?

Pitts, it is just coming up to 13 months since the accident. It is not unusual for a report to be published more than a year after the event. The AAIB will not be delaying publication due to external influences (I can't imagine what on earth those could be), they will publish it when the last t has been crossed and i dotted.

Yep things can take time and yep i's and t's need to be dotted and crossed. None of that is cause for a moan up. The report has been delayed however, they themselves reported as much in July. The reason one can only guess and I suppose in the fullness of time when the conclusion of the accident is actually given one will be able to take a view on what led to those conclusions and when those factors became evident.

As you know there have been several interim reports and the elements within those reports that relate directly to the flight seem reasonably fundemental. It will be of great interest just how much of that is changed - if at all.

It would be interesting to go over the chain of events surrounding the RAF Puma crash at Caterrick a few years back. I can't quite remember but I think there was a point where the accident investigation stopped whilst the legals cut-in.

Which investigation is being delayed? The AAIB will report when ready(serious ones seem to take 12-18 months at best) after submitting a pre-report to the CPS anyway.


The police obviously would like to double check statements so that if it goes to court there is no conflict with what Andy has told the AAIB and what he has told them. As he seems to have only been interviewed once I would expect that he is likely to be interviewed again once they have the AAIB report or even the statements.
Does anyone know who else the police have interviewed, I am presuming it won't just be Andy but the show organisers, maintenance group, owners at least.


Unfortunately, we do not have other aircraft crash inspectors/experts only the AAIB which is great until something like this happens and then the Police have to rely on the AAIB (resulting in a conflict of interest) who can only give partial info and no-one else has access to the aircraft. This hinders any investigation work.


I know the AAIB was set up to review aviation safety and make recommendations for improvements (like the HSE) which is great but at the end of the day the pilots version of events, the maintenance groups version of events etc is something that could easily be provided to the police without any 'blame' being apportioned. This would give the police maybe a little bit more information and they could then move forward with their investigation quicker. Instead of the AAIB providing a copy to the interviewee which they can provide to a 3rd party if they so wish. The AAIB could easily ask the interviewee to sign a copy to confirm they are happy that the summary of events is accurate and this would be the part of the factual information provided to the police if it is requested They obviously can take legal advice if they so wish before signing but must sign it. The full transcript of the interview is still something that would need to be requested via court order.

As reported in the Argus?

They "confirmed", they aren't quoted as saying it has been delayed which leads me to suggest "delayed" is the journalist's wording. Have the AAIB ever suggested that earlier publication would take place?

I suspect none of us will be too surprised by the conclusions of the final report...

Hebog:


Treadigraph:

Back in March at the coroners pre-inquest this was reported:-

Things get delayed, stuff happens but just as easy to have clear communication as the continued fog, especially given the circumstances.

I think given the prior commentary around this I'm sure a vast number will be and should be surprised, otherwise it doesn't say very much for the expectations being set around such activities.

If there are further human factors to report upon - which i've no doubt there are - then any further findings (or should i say their publication and therefore for many the removal of any lingering doubt) will highlight just how the timing of its publication aligns itself to an objective of flight safety which probably dictates that relevant detail need to be communicated sooner than later.

One item that seems to be looming is the instrument fit and position of the variety of aircraft this pilot operated. That is a potential issue for very many pilots not just those engaged in display activities. It might seem a very obvious point but then aren't all the usual gotchas?

Fair enough, but "expected" doesn't read to me as "will" and therefore I don't see this as a delay. I believe drafts have to go through various processes before publication.

Sorry, just re-read... really...? No, really? No. Looming from where?

The only thing that would be looming is in the AAIB Special Bulletin : S1-2016, namely that in a air display in 2014 in another type of aircraft, at another venue, the pilot of G-BXFI was stopped by the FDD following concerns about the execution of a manoeuvre. A CAA FSO was present but did not witness the occurrence. After an informal discussion with the pilot the same day, the CAA took no further action and did not formally record the incident.
The AAIB goes on to say, nevertheless the occurrence could have provided an opportunity to explore the pilot`s continued competence.

Nothing to do with blame and general procedure, but something that interested me.

I was at a conference on Friday at Cranfield, where we had a presentation from AAIB on drones (which now seems to be the official term, whether we like it or not). They showed what they could do with theirs. AAIB have a moderately sophisticated camera drone and rather more sophisticated set of analysis software behind it.

It seems that at Shoreham, amongst other places, they deployed the drone, which then set up an automatic GPS controlled scan pattern above the accident site, which then in a matter of a few minutes captured the whole site. They are then able to turn that into a 3D model which the inspectors can then analyse from multiple angles, in slow time back at Farnborough.

The speaker showed the Shoreham site, and superimposed it on ground/tripod based imagery obtained by the local police. The results were largely the same, but apparently produced in a much shorter time than the police method, using a fraction of the manpower. We were shown other images - one was I am pretty certain the Carfest Gnat accident, two others I didn't recognise the specific instances were a helicopter crash into a large field, a glider collision with the top of the hangar, allowing easy examination of witness marks, and a microlight accident into trees, allowing examination of the broken branches and thus an indication of the final tragectory.

I thought it was a very impressive and clever use of latest technology in support of air accident investigation. If nothing else, it must significantly reduce the time before a site can be cleared of debris, and more importantly, bodies.

I shouldn't be surprised as such that AAIB are making such intelligent use of new technology - but I was certainly impressed.

G

Thank you
 

Nice to know G. Thanks.

Application for disclosure of documents to Sussex Police refused by High Court, cockpit camera footage allowed to be disclosed under strict conditions:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/s...ourt-judgement

Yep, just seen a comment to members from one of the Unions involved....not sure if is (yet) for public release, will copy it here if it is for general release.

Probably safe to say cockpit camera footage is only going to be disclosed in this case because they were a voluntary/"domestic" installation, not installed as part of some mandatory CVR/FDR fit.