AAIB investigation leads to manslaughter charges. UPDATE: Prosecution Withdrawn

[LANDAFTERTHEWOT]

Have just seen a news flash on Sky about a crash in kent. Two killed? Anyone got any further info?

Another Bad Day

[yakker]

From Sky news

TWO KILLED IN LIGHT AIRCRAFT CRASH


Two people have died after their light aircraft crashed on the top of cliffs on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent, the fire service has said.

Emergency services were called to Warden Point after members of the public reported seeing the plane disintegrate in the air.


A spokesman for Thames Coastguard said they had received a number of 999 calls from local residents and passers-by who witnessed the crash in a field by the cliff-edge just before 2pm.

"It seems to have disintegrated in the air. The occupants appear to have come down with the plane," he added.

Kent Fire Service said two people in the plane had been confirmed dead.

"Our officers are at the scene. There does not appear to be any fire," the spokeswoman added.

[ESSEX BOY]

From BBC NEWS ...

"Two die in light aircraft crash"

Two men have died when their light aircraft crashed on the top of cliffs on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent.
Emergency teams said the accident happened at Warden Point, just before 1400 BST on Saturday.

Members of the public told Thames Coastguard they saw the plane disintegrate in the air - coastguards said the men came down with the plane.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service said they attended the scene and found no fire, but that two men were confirmed dead.


Coastguards received several emergency calls from residents and passers-by who saw the air crash in a field by the cliff-edge.

Kent Police said the microlight crashed in Warden Road in the East Church area of Sheerness.

Emergency teams said the bodies were recovered by coastguards, but that their identities have yet to be established.

Investigators from the Civil Aviation Authority are at the scene.



Comiserations to family & friends .... !

EB

[Paracab]

BBC news site saying two dead after a microlight (?) crash, members of the public report the aircraft 'disintergrated'.

RIP

Edited to say that myself and EB must have been posting at the same time.

[Crosswind Limits]

I was flying over Sheppey at about the same time heading back to SEN from DVR. Sad news! :(

[bar shaker]

It was a flexwing microlight.

Very sad.:sad:

[Bearcat]

what a name for a flying machine in the circumstances......God rest their souls.

[WanSum]

Quite close to where we live, and have friends who fly microlights from Rochester (need to call to see they are OK). From BBC Kent:-

"Two men died when their light aircraft crashed on the top of cliffs on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent.
Emergency teams said the accident happened in Plough Lane, just before 1400 BST on Saturday.

Members of the public told Thames Coastguard they saw the plane disintegrate in the air; coastguards said the men came down with the plane.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service said they attended the scene and found no fire, but that two men were confirmed dead.

Emergency calls


Rochester Airport control manager, Paul Richardson, who knew the men, said the pilot was in his 50s and the passenger in his early 20s.

"The passenger's family have been to the airport.

"They were very distressed and it was a while before they knew what was going on at the accident scene," he said.

Coastguards received several emergency calls from residents and passers-by who saw the air crash in a field by the cliff-edge.

"We are absolutely devastated. The pilot was a very close friend of ours," said a spokeswoman for the Rochester Microlight Flying School.

Investigators from the Civil Aviation Authority are at the scene. "


Steve

[jonnyq462]

does anybody know the name of the pilot. I believe the wing parted company with the rest of the aircraft.:( RIP:(

[Fly Stimulator]

does anybody know the name of the pilot
Yes, several of us here do, but hold to the view that it's poor form to rush to publish names of those killed until they are released into the public domain by the authorities. It will be in the press soon enough no doubt.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As Fly Stimulator says.


This is an awful accident which has affected a great many people. The investigation is just starting, as is the painful process by which the bereaved must adjust their lives; unsurprisingly the police have not yet released the names - it's right that family are notified personally first.

We all have the deepest sympathies for the friends, colleagues and families of those who died. Whilst doing this, lets let those closest to them support them, and try to stay out of the way whilst the investigators do their job to try and find the cause, and prevent any recurrence of whatever happened here.

G

[Foxy Loxy]

Awful, terrible news. Too often i have said the following words here recently. Deepest condolences to the families and friends of the deceased.

Foxy

[Ranger One]

"A 60-year-old man has been charged with manslaughter following the deaths of a pilot and his passenger in a microlight crash in Kent."

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4665502.stm

Now this probably should be moved to GA forum in due course... but it's news: what's the last time you can remember a crash leading to a manslaughter charge in the UK?

AAIB report is here:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_2005_g_styx.cfm

"...the microlight's uprights upper fittings had been modified to comply with Service Bulletin 116 requiring the fitting of additional rivets. The additional rivets were not only fitted incorrectly, and without reference to the Service Bulletin, but two of them did not match the specification of those rivets supplied by the manufacturer..."

Presumably they've charged the rivetter...

R1

[Heliport]

What's the last time you can remember a crash leading to a manslaughter charge in the UK?

A helicopter engineer in 2001.

Link here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18791)


Heliport

[Ranger One]

A helicopter engineer in 2001.

Damn... should have remembered that one. Not really my department, but heard about it. Thanks Heli.

Interesting... that thread implies that the AAIB report was withheld until after the prosecution, presumably as it was prejudicial, whereas in the present case the prosecution followed the publication of the formal report.

R1

[egbt]

Long thread on this here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198568

[Heliport]

Ranger One

I remembered the previous occasion because it involved a helicopter.

It doesn't detract from the point you make. I can't think of any other aviation manslaughter case in the UK.

Worrying if people are now going to be prosecuted on the basis of information obtained by the AAIB.

H.

[VP959]

Not wishing to spoil the chat, but those of us closely involved are a bit concerned that too much loose talk about the technical details could possibly be prejudicial to the case.

The charge was unlawful killing of two people, BTW, which is a step up from gross negligence manslaughter, I think.

The inspector was a volunteer, not a licensed engineer. The aircraft was on a Permit to Fly, not a C of A.

VP

[Ranger One]

Not wishing to spoil the chat, but those of us closely involved are a bit concerned that too much loose talk about the technical details could possibly be prejudicial to the case.

VP959 - I do understand from the other thread that you're not a stranger to some of the people involved in the case, but I don't think the above should be a serious concern - it's not as if there's going to be a lot of wild speculation about the causes, the AAIB report is in the public domain and contains as much of the technical detail as anyone could wish for. Whilst I understand some of the AAIB conclusions have ruffled feathers, the fact-finding is fairly clear-cut.

Flying Lawyer would be able to advise better on the legal aspects of discussing the case here, and in particular of the AAIB report being in the public domain. What's an AAIB report for, if not to inform the aviation community - and inevitably provoke discussion?

R1

[VP959]

No problem with discussion, but Flying Lawyer is unlikely to join in, perhaps you can guess why.

Perhaps I'm being overly cautious, but the discussion about this on other groups has been a bit controversial, to put it mildly.

My major fear is that that the accident cause has been at best over-stated with regard to accuracy and at worst has been down right wrongly reported, leading to possibly false impressions to be gained. Those that have read the report will have a problem equating a tested 10g equivalent failure load on a defectively modified component with the conclusions, for example.

Clearly there were many errors and ommissions by several people and organisations in this accident, as is often the case. My concern is that the focus has been on one man, who played a part in the chain, to the exclusion of all else.

One cannot help but wonder if this prosecution is in the public interest.

VP

[This is a crisis]

I decided the other day to have a look at a report of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch into a fishing boat accident. The first thing that struck me was a statement on the first page:
"Extract from
The United Kingdom Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation)
Regulations 2005 – Regulation 5:“The sole objective of the investigation of an accident under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005 shall be the prevention of future accidents through the ascertainment of its causes and circumstances. It shall not be the purpose of an investigation to determine liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve its objective, to apportion blame.”
NOTE
This report is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 13(9) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005, shall be inadmissible in any judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purpose is to attribute or apportion liability or blame."
I have never seen such a statement in an AAIB report - seems strange the two sets of legislation are different.

[VP959]

The Chief Inspectors statement on the front page of the AAIB website is:

"The fundamental purpose of the AAIB is:

"To improve Aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. ...It is not to apportion blame or liability"

VP

[Sunfish]

I guess the first question will be the admissibility of the report.

Having said that, I do not understand what could have possessed anyone to not comply, or attempt to comply, exactly with a service bulletin.

[VP959]

The reasons for the pilot (for it was his responsibility under the regulations) not complying with the bulletin are unknown, but there has been much speculation.

Certainly the service bulletin as originally issued at this time was not very clear and very little emphasis was placed on the safety implications.

I have wondered quite how reasonable it was for a company to supply the owners of a £24000 aircraft with a 4.8mm drill bit, four 3/16 Avdel MonoBolts and a photocopied two page set of instructions with an undimensioned sketch and expect them to take a Black and Decker to primary structure themselves.

VP

[MrFire]

I have wondered quite how reasonable it was for a company to supply the owners of a £24000 aircraft with a 4.8mm drill bit, four 3/16 Avdel MonoBolts and a photocopied two page set of instructions with an undimensioned sketch and expect them to take a Black and Decker to primary structure themselves.

VP Well £24k doesn't exactly buy hot and cold running spanner-monkeys :ok:

[soddim]

It's a good point made by VP959. A 24k car would have been subject to service recall, so why not a microlight?

[Ranger One]

It's a good point made by VP959. A 24k car would have been subject to service recall, so why not a microlight?

Because a 24k car is designed and sold as mass-market transportation to people who may have no clue how to open the bonnet.

A microlight is sports equipment. No, I don't mean that in the slightest in a derogatory sense. But the microlight is better compared with a racing car, not a family runabout...

R1

[MrFire]

AAIB: "A modification kit, that included the Service Bulletin, Avdel rivets and drill bit, was sent to the owner, who asked a BMAA inspector to assist him with the embodiment. The inspector sought advice from another individual who assured him that it was a simple job....
...the inspector has stated that he did not see a copy of the Service Bulletin before starting the job. After some discussion it was decided to fit the new rivets below the existing ones, because they felt it would be less likely to cause or create a crack in the aerofoil extrusion....
...The inspector could not explain why the wrong rivets had been fitted and did not appear to be aware of the differing mechanical properties of different types of rivets, how to determine if they had been correctly formed, or the importance of fitting them in the correct positions...
...Whilst the inspector read the Service Bulletin prior to signing the aircraft logbook, he still believed that his decision to fit the additional rivets below the existing rivets was correct."

In November 05 egbt wrote: [in full]
"Having read the report I wonder if the BMAA can survive if it does not make very major changes to it’s procedures and even bigger changes to it’s culture to ensure that they are followed.

IMHO everyone has a right to expect, when taking a flight in or buying an aircraft, that the aircraft conforms to the standards which the governing body says it does. I take Mike’s point about acceptance of risk but in this case the risk was being misrepresented –

* The aircraft had not in the past been maintained to the schedules - a 200 Hr service at > 300 Hrs! (OK perhaps not directly relevant to this accident but an accident waiting to happen)
* The mod was signed off by an inspector but was incorrectly done and not understood or checked properly.
* There was essentially no paperwork and the wing had (probably) not been inspected per the schedule.
* The inspector had signed that the paper work had been checked and was correct!
* The BMAA’s inspection system shown to be in some disarray – putting it kindly!

The BMAA system, in the widest sense of the word, did not pick any of this up and revalidated the aircraft’s permit. Thereby failing it’s customers, in its duty of care and the duty it assumed by asking for and accepting a regulatory role on behalf if the CAA.

And before the flaming starts I have no particular interest in PFA vs BMAA wars as I am not associated with either, although there is a strong probability I will be moving from a certified a/c to a permit one in the near future."

[MrFire]

The inspector was a capable person in a position of responsibility who just didn't have the knowledge and expertise for the job in hand. As an ignorant guest landlubber I can't see how someone with no formal engineering qualifications and apparently limited technical expertise can have been entrusted by the BMAA to inspect and sign off aircraft. However, in carrying out the work and signing for it he clearly accepted responsibility when he should have deferred it.

[VP959]

The mod was embodied after the Permit renewal.

BMAA inspectors are not authorised to carry out work or repairs, or to help with them. If they do, then they are doing so as ordinary individuals, not BMAA inspectors.

It is the pilot/owners responsibility to ensure maintenance is carried out properly.

There is no requirement for the inspector to be shown proof of normal engine maintenance per se, he just has to be satisfied that the owner/pilot has done it. An inspector would have no way of knowing if an owners log book entry was correct or not., and has to largely take it on trust.

I agree that this investigation found many problem areas, but we are talking about a self-help organisation largely run by volunteers in their spare time. If one were to forensically examine any sporting association, say an amateur motor racing club, then I suspect similar problems might be highlighted.

The vast majority of BMAA inspectors have no formal aircraft engineering background and most will have been completely unused to dealing with structural repairs. Most inspection is making sure nuts and bolts are OK, tubes and wires aren't worn or damaged and that fabric is still in good condition.

VP

[MrFire]

Thanks for the clarification VP959. I was unclear about the exact role of BMAA inspectors.

[DX Wombat]

Is it just me having problems finding any posts dated later than 2.2.06 in this thread? There was one posted supposedly at 16:59hrs yesterday and one today at 14:22hrs but, as they were both made by the same person would I be correct in thinking they may have been removed because they were in some way unsuitable? :confused:

[IO540]

Yes, the thread has been hacked.

[Flying Lawyer]

DX Wombat

I have an interest in this thread, having advised/represented the engineer until I left the Bar, and have been watching it very closely since it appeared yesterday - after a break of 2 years.

No posts have been removed since then. 100% certain.

But there may be some important news posted very soon. ;)

[BRL]

Is it just me having problems finding any posts dated later than 2.2.06 in this thread? There was one posted supposedly at 16:59hrs yesterday and one today at 14:22hrs but, as they were both made by the same person would I be correct in thinking they may have been removed because they were in some way unsuitable?

Nothing to do with me at all. I will see what I can dig up......

[IO540]

Something went wrong with the database software, to show that there were new 2008 posts but in fact the last showing was 2006.

[DX Wombat]

Thank you everyone, it's good to know it wasn't just my vivid imagination. :)

[Legalapproach]

The Attorney General has issued a Nolle Prosequi in this case bringing proceedings to an end.

This is a rare procedure (I understand it may be the first Nolle issued this century) and followed successful legal argument at the Old Bailey in January, and then an application to the A-G by his lawyers to halt further proceedings.

Although the proceedings were discontinued before any trial, the allegations would have been hotly contested and there was a strong defence.

The volunteer BMA Inspector was awarded his defence costs.

[Flying Lawyer]

Congratulations are due to my friend and colleague Stephen Spence (barrister and PPL) who continued the defence when I left the Bar.

Had the trial proceeded, the defence would have challenged the prosecution case very strongly in several different areas and, although one can never forecast a verdict with 100% certainty, it was my firm view that the volunteer BMAA 'inspector' would be found Not Guilty.

I am no longer permitted to comment upon legal matters, but some might say this prosecution should never have been brought or, having been brought, should have been withdrawn a long time ago.
And some might say that, had the trial proceeded, the BMAA would not have come out of it smelling of roses.

As an aviator, I was disappointed (to say the least) to see the back-watching manner in which John Whelan, a volunteer 'inspector', was abandoned by the BMAA, although thankfully not by several members in a personal capacity - Jeremy Harris and others - who helped and supported him through this very long and extremely stressful process which has had dreadful consequences for his health.
I can only hope that, with the strain now over, Mr Whelan's health will gradually improve.

FL

[tonyaddison]

i must be misunderstanding something ,...if someone in the position of an inspecter signs something off that he has not checked which kills two people he should be locked up ,its a disgrace.we pay a fortune to these people and mostly have nothing more than there word that work has been carried out. just because he gets a posh lawer who gets him off by playing the nutter card doesnt chance the fact he did it .you just prevent him from being made responsible for his actions...shame on you .reminds me of the usa ,if you pay enough cash you get away with anything...shame on you!!!!!!!!!

[Rod1]

“its a disgrace.we pay a fortune to these people and mostly have nothing more than there word that work has been carried out”

He was a volunteer unpaid inspector

“.if someone in the position of an inspecter signs something off that he has not checked which kills two people he should be locked up”

That would depend on the circumstances under which he signed it…

[poss]

That is a great outcome, from what i'd read the case shouldn't have even happened. Well done :):D

[tonyaddison]

if what people here are claiming is that the man is innocent why did he suddenly go mad when faced with a court case .if what you all say is true why didnt he go to court and prove himself innocent? he just got out of it by conviniently going mad .ive recently puchaced an aircraft myself and when looking was amazed at how many dodgy aircraft dealers /maint that there are.i once mentioned that a 12 year spar check was missing from a log book and was told ...oh he must have forgot to sign it .,no problem il get hem to stick it in the log book ...loads of people trying to sell cut and shunts or in one case aircraft that had been submerged in flood waters ...these people will charge huge fees for everything but when they get caught out and the sh!t hits the fan they dont want to know!!!!!!!!

[Flying Lawyer]

tonyaddison

That's quite an entrance for a new Ppruner.
I suppose it has one advantage: Any change in your approach in the future can only be an improvement.

"i must be misunderstanding something ,"
Yes, you are.
In addition to your misunderstanding concerning the use of capital letters, you are labouring under the mistaken belief that you know enough about the circumstances of both the accident and the subsequent court proceedings to make the comments you saw fit to make.

"...if someone in the position of an inspecter signs something off that he has not checked which kills two people he should be locked up ,its a disgrace."
Some people might consider it wise to ensure they know the relevant facts before making such sweeping assertions. They might, in particular, wish to be sure that the signing off had a causal connection with a subsequent crash.
You're clearly not one of them.

"we pay a fortune to these people ..........."
He was an unpaid volunteer.

"just because he gets a posh lawer who gets him off"
Neither I nor the barrister who took over from me would claim to be posh, but thank you for the compliment.

"by playing the nutter card"
Two consultant psychiatrists, one of whom was a specialist forensic psychiatrist chosen by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the man was medically unfit to cope with a trial and medically unfit to give evidence in his own defence.
If you knew the medical facts and sad medical history of the past two years or so, you might not use such an offensive term; but, given the tone of your post, I suppose you might.

"doesnt change the fact he did it .you just prevent him from being made responsible for his actions...shame on you ."
You are not in a position to assess whether he was responsible for what occurred.
Experts, who were in a position to do so, were divided about what caused the structural failure in flight and, in particular, about whether any actions or failings by the defendant had any bearing whatsoever on that failure.

"reminds me of the usa ,if you pay enough cash you get away with anything"
Yes, I've always been a little envious of the astronomic fees successful attorneys earn in the USA. I turned down a very attractive approach by a major American law firm about 25 years ago, and have often regretted it. I'd be living somewhere overlooking the Pacific, and probably be retired by now. Oh well, Chelsea has its charms and I enjoy my job.
I doubt if you allow facts to get in the way of your various prejudices but, for what it's worth, the lawyers in this case worked for Legal Aid. (It used to be referred to colloquially at the Criminal Bar as 'Lucozade', but the level of fees the government paid failed to keep pace with the increasing price of the soft drink, so that fell into disuse.)
I did some work on the case before Legal Aid was granted, and did so free of charge. Legal Aid is not retrospective so that work remained free of charge; it was my privilege to help a fellow aviator in trouble.

"shame on you!!!!!!!!!"
Some may think it's not me, nor the barrister who completed the defence work, who ought to feel ashamed.

FL


Edited after reading your second outburst:

The man wasn't selling anything. He just helped a fellow microlight enthusiast, and friend.
Your other comments suggest you've never experienced 'if only' feelings when a friend dies. The feelings of guilt are usually irrational, but no less real for that.

[S-Works]

Flyinglawyer. I wish I was as eloquent and rational as you.

[BRL]

FL, you took the words right out of my mouth.....!

Seriously though, if anyone else wants to jump on the tonyaddison bandwagon then may I suggest you get some facts right first before posting.

[Commanche 260]

Terrible incident. Hate to hear about aviation accidents
RIP

[VP959]

I am so glad that I took the time to read this thread right through to FL's eloquent and precise summary. Had I only read the uninformed twaddle being spouted forth from someone who obviously hadn't bothered to find out the truth before passing judgement, then I am sure I would have been less restrained than this in my response.

Please take the time to carefully read the accident report, temporarily ignore the conclusion drawn, and see if the incorrectly modified components were found to fail under test at any realistic flight load. If you read the report carefully, you will find that the incorrectly modified parts would still have been strong enough to withstand the ultimate test loads required for BCAR Section S certification.

The report is, unfortunately, flawed and does not reach a conclusion that fits it's own test data. The shame of this is that two people tragically died and yet the lessons that should have been learned from their deaths, to hopefully prevent a recurrence, have not yet emerged.

VP

[Legalapproach]

T
tonyaddison:

"i must be misunderstanding something..."

Yes Tony I am afraid you are. Try not to be quite so vitriolic without at least establishing the basic facts first.

Oh and Stephen Spence is definitely not posh - you are mistaking him for his wife;)

[Lister Noble]

Flying Lawyer,
I have a couple of pals in the legal profession who always say what I think and wanted to say ,but I manage it about 10 secs too late.
Agree with all that you said,it is so easy to be jury and judge without the true facts.
A bit like cutting a piece of wood,measure twice and cut once.
But I'm still a rubbish carpenter.:):)
Lister

[S-Works]

What does make me curious having read the report now and please excuse me if this is the wrong place to ask but what actually happened in flight to get the aircraft to exceed the design limitations? According the report even though the mod was carried out incorrectly it still would have exceeded the original design requirements.

This makes me wonder what sort of stick the aircraft must have had for the part to fail?

[Rod1]

"This makes me wonder what sort of stick the aircraft must have had for the part to fail?"

The aircraft still met section s so we know the flight must have exceeded the limits set out in the manual. I guess the which limits question can be answered by another look at the evidence but we will probably never know why.

The Civil case against the BMAA has the potential to put them out of business as I understand they are not insured in this case. I would guess a lot of effort will be put into looking at the real cause but it may be a long time before we find.

Rod1

[VP959]

This debate is straying into areas that will come out in court, so I won't elaborate on causality in this specific case, other than to highlight that flexwing microlights, despite being extremely safe if flown within their approved flight envelope, can be very unforgiving if that envelope is exceeded. For example, they have no aerodynamic controls, and rely entirely on weight shift for control authority, which demands that they remain positively loaded at all times.

The BMAA is insured, but most probably not to the level that might be required if they lose this claim. If that happens, then they will most probably lose their assets, which includes the high value offices they own outright.

I doubt very much if the civil claim will be successful, as the BMAA now have access to the same evidence that would have shown the inspector to be not guilty.

Unfortunately for the families of the deceased, it seems that they may not have aimed their civil suits in the right direction, not that I am a great supporter of using litigation to claim compensation in adventurous recreational activities.

VP

[VP959]

The BMAA is a small (around 4000 members) association, run primarily by volunteers, with just a small permanent staff of around 6 or so. It looks after microlights (ultralights) in the UK and all it's inspectors are just volunteer members. Many are not engineers, just people with microlight experience who are deemed OK to check things over.

The insurance premium is very high for such a small voluntary association. In the US, the helpers for such an association would have some limitation as to their liability thanks to the Volunteer Act, as I understand it. Here in the UK we have no such law.

In many ways, the BMAA might be better off without insurance, as then I suspect it wouldn't be such a target for the no-win, no-fee characters.

VP

[stickandrudderman]

In addition to your misunderstanding concerning the use of capital letters, you are labouring under the mistaken belief that you know enough about the circumstances of both the accident and the subsequent court proceedings to make the comments you saw fit to make.


If words could kill....

Hmmm, Mr. Addison seem strangely quiet all of a sudden!

It's a sad inditement of modern society that one must hope that one has someone like FL on one's side WHEN someone decides to sue one!

Beware offering the hand of friendship or assistance for fear you might get it chopped off. What a sad world we live in.

[straightfeed]

Getting away from the some of the less than informed comment over all this.

After the AAIB report I asked the BMAA Chief Exec what sort of cover the Inspector might expect to defend and protect himself. I was told that he was given the names of recommended lawyers.
When I asked about using the BMAA insurance cover there was doubt that this may not be possible. Negligence by anyone or by any body at that time had not been proved. Clearly, the back watching that FL talks about.

I have not renewed my BMAA Inspectors ticket this year due to a health problem, but I'm sure glad I never relied on their insurance and support in any case that may have befallen me. Oh, and I did it all for sod all except petrol money. As for engineering background. Over 30 years from apprentice to the big jets plus years of tech college.

Many good people came to Johns rescue and devoted a lot of effort and time to raise doubts about causes, system failures etc. None of this reflects well on BMAA or the overseeing CAA.

On a slightly different tack. As good and as well meaning as the AAIB are in finding the causes (and not to apportion blame) of accidents, these freely available reports are seen by a few who will see only blame and guilt. If only life were that simple. That these reports are then used for legal cases seems to me that the less we say to the AAIB the better.

Its comforting to see that the BMAA have since appointed a Chief Inspector who has set systems and standards that hopefully will not allow this to easily happen again.

The system at the time allowed John to do what he did. It also failed to support him in his hour of need. Kind hearted peeps did that.
Its not certain that the eventual failure of the trike was as a result of any work done.

My thoughts are of course for those that lost their lives and their families.

[tonyaddison]

sorry but i still dissagree with you all. you got 2 medics to confirm he was mad ....so you have had someone who is mentally unfit inspecting aircraft? who was perfectly ok untill the court case?.....this is not a personel go at anyone its clear most of you are mates with the person. i still think if an inspector signs something off ,wether hes paid or not and a fatality is caused because he didnt check it properly then i think he should take responsibilty for his actions. the whole medicly unfit to stand trial is a sham ,a get out clause that has been used by lawers to get people off for years. i feel sorry for all involved but dont see why i should be bullied into agreeing with your views.........sorry havnt been around ........i hve to work for money

[Shunter]

I sincerely hope your "work" doesn't involve reliance on spelling or grammar Mr Addison.

Have you actually bothered to read the reports? No, didn't think so.

[tonyaddison]

look i just think if this man is innocent go to court use your wonderfull not posh barrister from chesea ,whos a real good speller, to prove the point. by useing the madness exuse makes it look as though your trying to avoid court and why would you do that if your innocent. i am just looking at this without knowing anyone involved. you all seem very biased for no real reason other than your freinds which is probly not the most fair and logical way of looking at it. if it was a good freind of mine id probably be the same . but not going to court and proving theres somthing wrong with the mod or how it was done and clearing your name means the element of doubt will always be there........by the way .the way you go on about spelling make you sound like a your a bit up your own arse i could go on about the stupid pics and names you give yourselves but i didnt think the forum was about that!

[murphy1901]

Mr Addison,

May I suggest the level of grammar shown in your posts is directly in proportion to the level of knowledge and understanding you have of the matters discussed in this thread.

Out of respect for all concerned may I also suggest you refrain from sharing your "thoughts" on this matter any further?

[tonyaddison]

i stand by everthing i said ,if people like yourself didnt keep making your smart arse comments i wouldnt be replying...oh yes great name you got yourself .murfe

[BRL]

tonyaddison. You clearly have no idea about mental illness, or indeed the facts behind this case. I have studied mental illness a lot recently as I have been exploring old asylums and have read a lot doing research.

if what people here are claiming is that the man is innocent why did he suddenly go mad when faced with a court case .if what you all say is true why didnt he go to court and prove himself innocent? he just got out of it by conviniently going mad .

Mental illness can be triggered by any stressfull event that has happened in ones life. A death or a spouse leaving and so on. I imagine the stress of the court case didn't help and possibly the trigger here for his illness.

I will let you respond to this just the once before I ban you for being an idiot.

[tonyaddison]

i see where your coming from . to people close to all this what ive said may have seemed harsh and for this im sorry.it was a terrible accident for all involved .the only piont i was trying to make was that even though someone may not feel well enought at present to attend a court hearing for good reasons .in the future would it not be in the interest of all to ensure that it cant happen again and to clear any doubts about where responsibilty lies . i am suprised at the amount of aggresive and insulting replys you seem to ignor in this thread . i might not agree with you on a point but i wouldnt call you an idiot or start having a go beause you made a spelling mistake.

[A and C]

I can't help feeling that this is a case that has no winners what so ever.

A volunteer inspector makes an error that might or might not have been the cause of this tragic accident, what is clear is that the inspector did not act negligently, he may have made a mistake but this far from negligence.

The guy was just helping out a fellow flyer not trying to make a fast buck as some above might want to imply. The cost to the inspector of this accident has been months of distress over his part in this accident and the pressure has no doubt cost him his health.

As a LAA inspector this whole thing sends shivers down my back knowing that for just one mistake I could have been the subject of this thread.

As for tonyaddison he is just to stupid or immature to understand the issues in this tragic case.

[IO540]

An academic question:

I wonder what the law is like in this area (maintenance) regarding negligence.

In some bits of aviation, you are not liable unless negligence is proven.
For example, from vague memory, the owner/operator of an aircraft has strict liability to an injured/damaged party on the ground, and the pilot is liable jointly. But passengers (and I am not talking about commercial paying passengers which is a different thing) cannot get compensation unless negligence is proven. This apparently is why, in GA, any legal action by injured passengers (or their estates) tends to focus on proving allegations of negligence first of all.

[S-Works]

As a complete outsider with no view other than what I have read in the reports it strikes me that yes an error occurred on the part of the inspector as far as the inspection was concerned. I have a deep sympathy for his position and understand that this type of stress would be enough to tip any normal person over the edge. Calling the 'madness card' to my mind is crass and shows a lack of understanding on the part of those making the accusation.

But back to the subject as a third party reading the AIB material it strikes me that the modification and the subsequent inspection still exceed the original certification tolerances so it comes to my mind what exactly was the pilot doing with the aircraft to exceed the design tolerances to such a degree to cause the aircraft to fail in flight? Showboating to the passenger? Was the passenger given control and the aircraft end up in a situation where this relatively low hours instructor could not recover?

As an outsider I have more questions than answers. Which I guess if I was called to jury service would be the questions I would ask.

[DFC]

but not going to court and proving theres somthing wrong with the mod or how it was done and clearing your name


When one goes to court one does not get Justice one gets the law.

Innocent until found Guilty

This person is 100% innocent of all charges because they have not admitted to nor been found Guilty by a Court of them.

Some think that this was a case of the law being used and others will consider it Justice. No matter what the view, the person is innocent.

If you are affected by the case why not take a civil action and ontain your "Justice" or perhaps simply get the law?

-----------

If the defence costs have been awarded and provided the court pays all the costs, to what new good use will the monies collected to support "the cause" be put?

Regards,

DFC

[VP959]

I think it best to ignore this Addison chap, as I suspect that he is simply a troll, or someone connected with this case in some way who has decided to be a little unpleasant to aviators as a way of retaliating. If he is a relative or friend of one of the deceased, then perhaps his anger is understandable, even if it is misdirected.

The issue of causality will, I am sure, come out in the civil hearing. Much can be gleaned from very careful reading of the accident report, but there is a great deal more evidence subsequently gathered and examined that sheds more light on what most probably happened. It's worth noting that flexwing microlights have some very different handling quirks than those found when a conventional aircraft is pushed to the corners of it's envelope. The AAIB were, and to some extent still are, lacking in detailed expertise in flexwing handling and performance, so relied on support from the manufacturer, which was hardly impartial in these particular circumstances.

If the full defence costs are paid, then the trustees of the fund that contributed over £6,000 to the initial £20,000 or so of costs the inspector incurred before legal aid was awarded will have to make the difficult decision as to what best to do with it. I am sure that this will be done with respect for the wishes of those who donated, the wishes of the inspector and consideration for the deceased and their families. Whatever is decided will be made public in due course, I am sure.

VP

[Redbird72]

IO540:
This apparently is why, in GA, any legal action by injured passengers (or their estates) tends to focus on proving allegations of negligence first of all.

It's my (rough) understanding that for a private, non-paying passenger on a GA flight with a friend would be in a similar position compensation-wise to a car passenger, in the event of an accident.

...[Duff info deleted]...

[IO540]

Aviation law is different, Redbird.

But we need a lawyer here ;)

For some reason, the lawyers who post here virtually never express a view on anything legal.

[Flying Lawyer]

Redbird72 It's my (rough) understanding that for a private, non-paying passenger on a GA flight with a friend would be in a similar position compensation-wise to a car passenger, in the event of an accident. That introduction in your response to IO540 is correct.

However, everything you say in your next two paragraphs is wrong.
(You also appear to misunderstand the legal position of passengers in road traffic accidents.)


IO540
"Aviation law is different, Redbird."
Not in the context of this thread.
"But we need a lawyer here ;)"
I'm sure one will see this and explain the relevant law. ;)

"For some reason, the lawyers who post here virtually never express a view on anything legal."
Is that fair? :(
eg I did so regularly, for many years, in various PPRuNe forums - sometimes concerning aviation law, sometimes other areas of law.

I am no longer as free as I used to be to express views on legal matters and, for that reason, I now either don't post on 'legal' threads (frustrating when completely inaccurate assertions remain uncorrected) or restrict myself to comments of a general nature/statements of facts already in the public domain. I go as far as I properly can, but no further.

As far as I know, none of the other lawyers who post on PPRuNe have my constraints, so no doubt one (or more) of them will answer your question in due course.
Of course, if a lawyer is/was involved in a case being discussed, there are limits upon what he/she can say about that particular case, but posts explaining the relevant law are not a problem.

FWIW, I doubt if any lawyer who responds will disagree with your understanding of the law, as set out in your previous post.



DFC
If the defence costs have been awarded and provided the court pays all the costs, to what new good use will the monies collected to support "the cause" be put?
I don't know the answer to your question but, just for the record -
I did not take a penny from the fund - I declined to do so. All my work on the case was free of charge.
The client subsequently obtained Legal Aid so neither I nor the barrister who took over from me when I left the Bar received anything from the fund.


FL

[IO540]

Thank you, FL.

I am sure the answer is buried somewhere in the Civil Aviation Act, but probably not clearly stated.

[Rod1]

“the BMAA involvement in the technical aspects of the investigation was greater than you are suggesting.”

By “BMAA involvement” do you mean head office or a person who is a member?

Rod1

[VP959]

The AAIB appear not to have responded to the very last criminal defence submission, as far as I am aware, although this doesn't particularly surprise me. The head of the AAIB has said that he would accept, and consider reviewing, any additional information that has a bearing on the report conclusion, so there is a possibility that an amendment may be made at some future date. This information will not now, I believe, be made available until the civil hearing. There's no legal constraint that requires this information to remain confidential, just the need to ensure that the civil defence isn't jeopardised.

Overall, I have the distinct feeling that the AAIB senior management feel very uncomfortable about their organisation being drawn in to the detail of legal cases, most probably because this inevitably involves some form of selective application of their findings. I also believe that the AAIB regret the way that this particular report managed to cause so much upset, judging from the very positive efforts that they have made recently to gain a better understanding of microlights.

VP

[Flap40]

Does anyone know why marine reports from the MAIB have wording that says:

This report is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 13(9) of the Merchant
Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005, shall be inadmissible in any
judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes is to attribute or apportion liability or
blame.

Why do we not have the same for Aviation (or rail) reports?

[Flying Lawyer]

It's part of Regulation 13(9), but the subsection actually ends with: ".......... unless a Court or tribunal, having regard to the factors mentioned in regulation 12(5)(b) or (c), determines otherwise."

As an aviator, I have misgivings about AAIB reports being used in litigation - whether criminal or civil.

I resist the temptation to comment upon the role of the AAIB in the prosecution being discussed except to say, again as an aviator, that I consider it was an extremely worrying step in the wrong direction by a body for which, for decades, I have had enormous respect.

[SiClick]

It was never the aaib's decision or wish that anyone was prosecuted. The aaib in its report merely stated the sequence of events that it believed caused the accident. That is its role.

[Flying Lawyer]

SiClick



I wasn't referring to the decision to prosecute (which was made by the CPS), but to things which happened before and after that.


FL

[Legalapproach]

IO540

I wonder what the law is like in this area (maintenance) regarding negligence.

Under the terms of the Civil Aviation Act, compensation is payable for damage caused to any property or person on the ground arising as a result of anything falling from aircraft being in flight, taking off or landing, without proof of negligence. The liability is on the owner of the aircraft unless it has been bona fide demised, let out or hired for a period exceeding 14 days and the pilot, aircraft commander, navigator or operating crew are not in the employ of the aircraft owner, in which case the liability is on the hirer etc.
Where a legal liability is created in some person other than the owner to pay damages in respect of the said loss or damage, the owner shall be entitled to be indemnified by that other person against any claim in respect of the said loss or damage. Therefore if there is negligence on the part of the crew or some other person that caused the damage the aircraft owner would be able to seek an indemnity in respect of the liability.
This is a statutory exception to the normal law (known as Tort – an actionable wrong not arising out of a breach of contract or a crime) dealing with loss and damage such as personal injury.

As far as an aircraft occupant is concerned, he or she is not covered by the terms of the Civil Aviation Act and therefore can only recover damages for loss or injury by proving negligence. This is the same as is the position of a passenger in a motorcar. Negligence has been defined as a failure to use reasonable care; the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.

In order to successfully claim damages, an injured passenger would have to prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. In civil proceedings proof of any of this would be on the balance of probabilities.

As an aside, in criminal proceedings such as gross negligence manslaughter, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, that the defendant was in breach of that duty, that the breach caused the death and if so whether it should be characterised as gross negligence, in other words that the defendant’s conduct was not merely negligent but so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission. All of this would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In your question you ask what the position is regarding maintenance and negligence. The simple answer is that either negligence would have to be proved or breach of contract i.e. a breach of an express or implied contractual term relating to the standard of work or the provision of materials etc.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've also some significant experience investigating microlight accidents, and prior to issue of AAIB's report had considerable sight of the evidence in this accident, as well as knowing the majority of the main "players" in this unhappy drama.

It was always my view that this prosecution should never have taken place - this is not a view about guilt or innocence (frankly, I don't want to discuss that at-all), more that the skill and energy spent either pursuing or defending this prosecution might well have saved lives if spent on genuine safety investigation and promotion.

Since the fatal accident to G-STYX, there have been three similar but so far unexplained fatal accidents to Airborne Edge 912/Streak III aircraft (two in Australia and one in South Africa), what appears to be a tumble fatality in the UK in a Quantum - still to be reported by AAIB, and the American NTSB are also conducting an investigation into several similar-ish flexwing fatal accidents. If we can eliminate these accidents then we'll probably get an outcome making flexwings safer per flying hour than certified GA. If all of the effort spent either accusing or defending John Whelan was spent elsewhere there might be people dead now who'd be alive - and further accidents WILL HAPPEN if we don't investigate and then publish/train-to-avoid what's causing these accidents.

Frankly the only good to come out of this investigation and prosecution to date has been the very overdue review of the BMAA inspectors system - but it's not enough and most of the energy directly related to the G-STYX fatal has been spent on blame attribution, not future accident prevention.

G

[Flying Lawyer]

Excellent contribution Genghis. :ok:


FL