Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow

[Flying Lawyer]

Upon reflection, it occurred to me that some more detail of the evidence given to the Court of Appeal by the Chief Inspector AAIB might be of interest to those concerned about the aviation safety implications:


The sole objective of an AAIB investigation is to determine the circumstances and causes of an accident (or incident) and make safety recommendations, if necessary with a view to the preservation of life and the avoidance of accidents and incidents in the future.

Anything that undermines the AAIB’s ability to obtain truthful information promptly would be detrimental to public safety and so contrary to the public interest.

If AAIB reports were frequently admitted into evidence in litigation there is the possibility that this would deter some people who were able to assist from doing so in the future. Witnesses may perceive a risk of their being called to give evidence or even made defendants to subsequent legal proceedings.

Witness cooperation may be less forthcoming. If witnesses have to be summoned to give evidence (only rarely necessary now) the quality of their evidence may be of less value.

Witnesses are likely to be more guarded in what they say. They may refer or be advised to refer to their employer organisation before dealing with the AAIB. Those organisations would likely refer the matter to their legal advisers to consider how evidence given might affect future litigation. This would slow down the progress of an investigation with a potential impact on the quality of any evidence, and could delay the development and formulation of any safety recommendation.

The regular admission of reports in evidence is likely to lead to requests for the underlying material since parties may argue that they need access to the underlying records to test the report’s findings and conclusions.

Organisations may not be prepared to provide information anonymously and in confidence if there is a risk it can be used against them or for commercial gain.

The volunteering of information may dry up. Whistleblowers may remain silent.

In addition, investigators may have to mention to those concerned that any report is admissible in civil proceedings, which would likely restrict the free flow of information; they may be driven to the use of compulsory powers; and they may write reports with a view to having to defend them in court rather than maximising safety benefits.

They may feel that any conclusions would have to be provable to the civil standard and that they would need to corroborate and track evidential chains to a much greater extent than is current practice. Reports may be drafted in such a way as to minimise the possibility of blame being inferred.

In addition appearances in court would increase the workload of inspectors and reduce time available for actual investigation.

There could, also, be an adverse effect on the public’s perception of the independence and remit of the AAIB since investigations would be perceived as prepared with a view to the possibility of future litigation and not therefore objective.

The AAIB is likely to be drawn into litigation and asked its opinion on liability.

International airline bodies, pilots’ unions and aviation manufacturers would advise their members to be cautious about what they say to the AAIB.

[Heathrow Harry]

Heliport

I DO understand the issues - but it never ceases to amaze me how the legal profession manages to encourage action after action in the same case - trial, appeal, appeal to higher courts, appeals to the ECJ, Judicial Review, start again with a slightly different action.............. "Eminent Council believes you have a case" etc etc

Just the other day a very senior Judge was bewailing the fact that csaes that went to arbitration might not be subject to legal review later.

To be blunt it often appears that the legal system exists to keep cases running until the plaintiffs cash runs out

Dickens was right

[Pittsextra]

The RAeS seminar referred to was actually a mixture of opinion. That might not be totally surprising because one assumes the seminar was organized to produce a balanced perspective.

The seminar highlighted that the use of the accident investigator reports in the UK varies across mature aviation nations and there is no clear consensious (in fact I think there was mirth on the lawyers side that they in fact argue the points around this issue depending upon which side of the argument they find themselves on case by case..) and secondly that the focus of thinking was with commercial aviation.

Arguments that concern themselves with pilot unions, employers, witnesses from other parts of the same organization, whistleblowers, airline bodies, aviation manufacturers, cockpit voice and flight data recorders are almost exclusively the domain of commercial air transport; as is the thinking that surrounds initiatives such as ‘Just Culture’.

So to relate that to a GA environment and then suggest that people might not understand wider aviation safety issues is probably quite arrogant because actually almost none of the thinking around this process unambiguously address that sector.

Not least of which is the fact that when a piece of engineering work has been done by the AAIB it surely makes good sense to be able to take point of fact from their work rather than having to fund a secondary investigation that, as Prof. Braithwaite suggested in his presentation, should inevitably come to the same conclusions.

In that context why not use details of an AAIB report, where those same details would become apparent were another investigation be engaged by some other body?

Of course you might argue that the other body might not be granted the same access to certain material of evidence but that would just lead to having an official AAIB report publishing certain facts that then become the elephant in the room and contradictory to this:

‘Anything that undermines the AAIB’s ability to obtain truthful information promptly would be detrimental to public safety and so contrary to the public interest.’

Surely it is also detrimental to public safety and contrary to public interest if there is no consequence to identifiable issues?

[Flying Lawyer]

Pittsextra

The platform speakers at each session of the seminar were selected for their specialist knowledge in relevant fields and to generate debate. SOP.
The audience was not. The seminar was open to anyone, including non-members.
I spoke from the floor in two of the sessions.
Did you offer your opinion(s)?

I think there was mirth on the lawyers side that they in fact argue the points around this issue depending upon which side of the argument they find themselves on case by case.Lawyers were free to express their personal opinions at the seminar.
When engaged in court proceedings they are under a professional duty to represent their client's interests to the best of their skill and ability. That includes relying upon any point of law which assists their client even if they happen to disagree with that law. Their personal views are wholly irrelevant when acting in a professional capacity. They would immediately be told very firmly by the Judge not to express personal opinions if they were silly enough to try.
the focus of thinking was with commercial aviation.
That is not correct.
The controversial Court of Appeal decision which was widely discussed at the seminar (and which I explained above) arose from the crash of a privately owned Tiger Moth flown by a PPL.
The focus was upon the implications for aviation safety.
The CA decision applies to both private and commercial aviation.


Many people, including some aviators, do not understand the wider aviation safety issues. Some can be encouraged to consider the wider issues; others are unwilling or unable to do so.
You are, of course, free to regard either or both of those assertions as "probably quite arrogant".
Some may think there is an irony in you accusing anyone of arrogance, even of the 'probably quite' variety. ;)

Non-contentious information extracted from aviation accident reports has been used in civil proceedings for at least 40 years to my knowledge.
That is not the issue which the Court of Appeal had to decide, and was not the topic of the seminar.

Two separate issues arise from the Court of Appeal's decision.
Fairness in civil proceedings.
Whether it will hamper future accident investigations and, in consequence, diminish the ability of the AAIB to make safety recommendations – for the reasons submitted by the Chief Inspector AAIB which I summarised above. Some of his points apply to commercial aviation; others apply to all aviation.

The first is primarily of interest to people involved in civil proceedings, voluntarily or otherwise, and their lawyers.
The second should be of concern to anyone concerned about aviation safety.

.

[Pozidrive]

AAIB reports are hearsay, not direct evidence.


They are anonymized documents - the authors are not named.
Opinions are expressed by un-named individuals whose expertise (or lack of) is not known.
The risk that juries will attach too much weight to the opinions of unknown AAIB inspectors simply because they are AAIB inspectors. They are generally very good but, in common with the rest of us, they are not infallible.





Any reason why AAIB inspectors should be anonymous? Surely they are all professionals who are capable of explaining their findings and opinions - effectively an expert witness role.

[alf5071h]

My experiences of lawyers in safety - accident investigation (not AAIB, but in support of them and investigations worldwide), was that the legal views before and after an accident differed significantly. Not a change amongst the same people, but in the roles undertaken by different groups.
Proactive advice, safety orientated, was invaluable; seeking to avoid accidents or understand and learn from events to improve safety; the classic, but not exactly the same view of separating investigation and law.
Reactive involvement was restrictive, cumbersome, and in rare instances devious to the point of influencing investigations.
These views reflect learning without blame – aviation safety, or alternatively punishment and retribution within the law. ‘Oil and water’, unfortunately the slippery oil was usually on top; thus you require a good detergent for a clean balanced view.

If AAIB reports are admissible (civil law), then why not allow 'anonymous' text of research / books, particularly for human factors to be considered.
Investigation reports are often restricted in identifying ‘real’ facts. The industry is increasingly safe and most accidents relate to human behaviour. There are few 'facts'; reports rarely speculate on human behaviour and even in nonfatal accidents pilots may not know why a particular course of action was taken – the subconscious mind.
Investigation reports will always be open to interpretation, not only individual experiences and expertise, but also as to how rules and regulatory advice is (should have been) interpreted – hindsight, after the fact.

Consider an accident similar to this thread. A pilot is cleared to 100ft for fly pasts, but the general rules require vertical manoeuvres to complete by 500ft; how might the rules be interpreted during an aerobatic sequence, transitioning from the vertical to a level flypast; what is complete.
Before an event this could be a matter of judgement, the regulatory process has accepted that the pilot is qualified, experienced, current, etc; but after an event - a failure of judgement where rules could be reinterpreted by investigators, regulators, and legal argument. I stress that the more reputable investigators are well versed in hindsight – regulators much less so; lawyers - may depend on objective / aviation context – human factors – but then I am biased.

Thus the ‘success’ of judgement is always after the fact, either error, blame, or a unique opportunity to learn because this involves the same mental process of judgement – the everyday method of learning.
The difference between before and after might only be a few feet in altitude; I suspect that there will be many ‘expert’ witnesses with such experience.

Other thoughts:-
“A just culture depends on who draws ‘the line’, not where the line is.” (Dekker)

http://www.safer.healthcare.ucla.edu/safer/archive/ahrq/FinalPrimerDoc.pdf

The emperor’s new clothes. (www.scribd.com/doc/181044462/The-emperor%E2%80%99s-new-clothes-pdf)

[Pittsextra]

FL - my reflection upon the RAeS event was just that. I reflect my view, nothing more. You may have a different view / different focus. Ultimately if there was a clear and consistent view I guess there would have been no seminar...

The Moth case was an interesting introduction to the subject but actually my summary of the same is that the outcome had wider points of debate than merely the use of AAIB material in a court of law. Not least the fact that a reports content may reflect safety recommendations that are subsequently of dispute in court.

One also wonders if events are in debate if interested parties raised points pre-final report.

Or you can turn it around and in the case of the Moth I'm not sure how flight safety is compromised if one agrees that control restriction was the primary issue and that had been reported definitively in an AAIB report.

[tucumseh]

Any reason why AAIB inspectors should be anonymous?

I, too, am puzzled. I've just had cause to read an AAIB report. The introduction (by the senior engineering inspector) begins, "I am Mr .........." and all his colleagues who contributed are similarly named. Their expertise is listed. Has this changed recently?

[tucumseh]

Airworthiness / safety is “none of my or the Society's business”. (Chief Executive, RAeS 5 October 2011)

Has this changed recently?

[Flying Lawyer]

alf5071h

A very interesting post.
There's force in what you say.

These views reflect learning without blame – aviation safety, or alternatively punishment and retribution within the law.

That, I agree, is an important issue in terms of aviation safety.
Public opinion, understandably and perhaps instinctively, favours the latter.
Informed opinion is divided. 'Informed' in this context being those who are aware of the pros and cons and have objectively considered the competing arguments.


Pittsextra
No useful purpose will be served by my repeating the arguments about why flight safety is likely to be compromised if AAIB reports are used for a purpose for which they are not intended.
See the submissions by the Chief Inspector AAIB in post 1490 above.


tucumseh
Airworthiness / safety is “none of my or the Society's business”. (Chief Executive, RAeS 5 October 2011)

I have read that claim elsewhere – by only one person. He/she also put only a part as a direct quote.
The sentence read as a whole is so obviously not correct that I wonder if the part not in quotes is the writer's interpretation of what the CEO said.

I have no axe to grind. Although I have been a Fellow of the RAeS for about 14 years, I have never been involved in its affairs. My contact has been limited to attending the occasional lecture, giving a keynote address at a Flight Operations Group conference and attending a couple of seminars. I don't know nor, as far as I can recall, have I ever met the CEO.

[Pittsextra]

FL - I hear the concern I just think in a GA context they are overplayed as the majority of issues raised relate to commercial operations. Cockpit voice, FDRs, pilot unions, whistle blowers and 'organisational lawyers' seem consistent with that.

You highlighted the Rogers v Hoyle case. Im unclear how this case supports the fear of uncooperative witness or pilot statements to the AAIB.

Surely here the pilot expressed a view of control restriction at the time and maintained that view later, it's just the AAIB report (as I read it) perhaps placed different emphasis. Likewise the AAIB had no real motivation for placing any emphasis on anything they didn't believe to be factual, yet we can all read their views.

Just as witness statements as reflected in the AAIB report would unlikely change as I'm not entirely sure what the consequence for them was either way?

So that isn't really supportive of a view that has a pilot - in trying to be helpful to the AAIB - subsequently hanging himself with his own statement; which is I think one colloquial summary of one fear.

The point being that if you replayed the interaction of pilot and AAIB saying nothing arguably would be worse than maintaining a consistent view as was done. If anything the greater risk to using AAIB reports in this manner is that challenges to the points raised has the potential to damage long term credibility and their validity.

[ShyTorque]

An interesting topic, the AAIB evidence being used in court.

I know of one case where the AAIB almost certainly came to an incorrect conclusion regarding the cause of a fatal accident involving an aerobatic biplane.

The accident was of direct interest to me because the deceased was a friend of mine and I had flown in the actual aircraft (in the same seat as himself) on the flight immediately previous to the accident. It occurred over the same area, carrying out the same type of aerobatic manoeuvres....with the subsequent deceased pilot in the other seat. I was also at the departure airfield waiting for the aircraft to return - which it never did.

I later spoke at length with the badly injured, second occupant of the aircraft. This person told me precisely what had happened and how control of the aircraft had been lost. The conclusion of the AAIB was quite different to what I was told.

[airpolice]

I used to accept whatever the AAIB published, after all, they have no reason to lie and must surely be professional enough to get it right.... well.... not any more.

Looking through accident reports and finding errors of fact, not opinion, in the situations that I do know about, makes me doubt all of the others.

Why is it that when someone points out errors, the AAIB don't correct the report?

[Thomas coupling]

Why is it that when someone points out errors, the CAA don't correct the report?

[Flying Lawyer]

Pittsextra

You highlighted the Rogers v Hoyle case.I referred to the appeal in that case because it produced a significant and far-reaching decision.
I'm unclear how this case supports the fear of uncooperative witness or pilot statements to the AAIB.That is because you persist in focusing upon the facts/circumstances (as you see them) of the particular accident and associated report. If you could stop doing that all should become clear.
I just think in a GA context they are overplayed as the majority of issues raised relate to commercial operations. Cockpit voice, FDRs, pilot unions, whistle blowers and 'organisational lawyers' seem consistent with that.That is demonstrably not true.
You have, in an attempt to support your argument, selected just a few items from the list of AAIB objections summarised in post 1490.


The use of the AAIB report as evidence in the Rogers v Hoyle case is of importance only to the parties.
You appear to think it made no difference in the circumstances of that case. The experienced specialist lawyers on both sides thought it did. On the basis that almost anything is possible, I suppose it's possible that you could be right and all the lawyers were wrong. I leave you to reflect upon how likely that is.

The circumstances of the accident which led to the civil claim were not relevant to the Court of Appeal's decision, nor were the contents of the AAIB report. That is because the Court was considering and deciding a point of legal principle. The detailed judgment explaining the decision is more than 11,000 words long. The facts of the accident took up 52 of those words. (The introductory paragraph.) I haven't checked but, from recollection, I don't think it contained any reference to the contents of the report. I would not expect it to because the Court decided a point of legal principle.

The importance of the Court of Appeal's decision is that it applies to all civil cases in which a party seeks to use an AAIB report as evidence - not just to the case of Rogers v Hoyle.

It has been described by some legal commentators using legal jargon as a 'landmark' decision for that reason. It was. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, judges now have to allow entire AAIB reports to be used as evidence in civil cases.


The AAIB stance.
Neither the AAIB nor anyone else suggested that all the AAIB objections applied in the Rogers v Hoyle case.
For some reason, you fail to grasp that the AAIB did not simply object to the use of its report as evidence in the particular case. It was opposed, for the reasons summarised in post 1490, to its reports being adduced as evidence in court proceedings - whether relating to commercial aviation or GA accidents.
ie The potential detrimental effect upon future air accident investigations.


I don't wish to appear discourteous but I see no point in continuing exchanges with you. I have explained the implications of the decision as simply as I can. This post is my final attempt. If you are still unable to understand, so be it.




(Edit)

You haven't answered the question I asked earlier re the RAeS seminar:
I spoke from the floor in two of the sessions.
Did you offer your opinion(s)?

It was a perfect opportunity to have your opinions considered by many people with relevant expertise - legal and other, including a former AAIB Chief Inspector.

.

[ShyTorque]

FL, I'd be interested to read your opinion regarding the situation I mentioned above. If that AAIB report had been used in evidence in court, it could have been entirely misleading but probably have been taken as correct and irrefutable and a miscarriage of justice would possibly have occurred. Obviously, someone such as myself would have learned of the miscarriage only after the event because I had no direct relevance to the case.

[tucumseh]

Flying Lawyer

I have read that claim elsewhere – by only one person. He/she also put only a part as a direct quote.
The sentence read as a whole is so obviously not correct that I wonder if the part not in quotes is the writer's interpretation of what the CEO said. First, a typo on my part - it was October 2012.

The context was the Chief Executive had been sent the written evidence to the Nimrod and Philip Reviews. In reply, he stated the content and subject was "none of my or the Society's business". The content was 100% safety/airworthiness related. The wider context was a number of Fellows expressing frustration at the CE vetoing letters refuting the MoD (and hence Society) line on the subject. Specifically, the members had noted, and wanted printed in the Society magazine, that MoD and Ministers (they named Adam Ingram) had been given advance warning of the systemic failures reiterated by Mr Haddon-Cave. This warning was given to Ingram over 18 months before the crash.

I'm sure, as you say, there is always scope for misinterpretation, or a poorly worded letter, but the Society's attitude toward the subject is well known, as is its overbearing attitude toward members who do not toe the line; especially on the likes of Mull of Kintyre.

[Tourist]

Tuc

I'm considering an experiment where people start threads on increasingly more random subjects and we time how long it will take you to turn it into a thread about your hobby horse and start twisting quotes to mean what you want them to mean rather than what the speaker meant.....

[tucumseh]

Thanks for that Tourist.

I posted comments in response to others yet you do not make the same comment to them. You therefore personalise the matter.

The most important point you miss in your condemnation of those whose implement safety regulations is that, as a pilot, these things should be largely invisible to you. You need to appreciate that we would have no cause to discuss them if people employed to ensure your safety would do their jobs correctly. You target the messenger, but ignore the message.

You have been asked many times; if you disagree so much with the mandated regulations, please tell us which ones should be scrapped. If you have put your suggestions to the authorities, I'd be happy to compare notes and discuss their responses.

[Flying Lawyer]

tucumseh

After reading read your explanation, I looked again at what I had previously seen alleged in identical style by 'someone' on another aviation related website. (As mentioned in my original response to you.)

There was far more to the correspondence than merely sending the Chief Executive a copy of written evidence given to the Nimrod and Philip Reviews. If that had been all that happened then the CE's response would have been outrageous. It wasn't.

I now think misinterpretation of what the CE wrote (the possibility I suggested previously) is very mild – and certainly not the word I would use now.

This issue is way off topic so I'll leave it at that.

[Flying Lawyer]

ShyTorqueFL, I'd be interested to read your opinion regarding the situation I mentioned above.

I can't give a definitive answer because there are too many variables but the short answer is that there could have been a miscarriage of justice.

I note that you refer to the "second occupant" rather than passenger, and that the AAIB "failed to determine who had actually been flying the aircraft at the time - because they never asked!"
Assuming, just for the purpose of illustration, that the second occupant was flying when control was lost, the question that arises is whether he would have been prepared to tell the AAIB that he was - had he been asked.

That prompts consideration of some of the objections the AAIB raised to the use of its reports for a purpose for which they are not intended:

If AAIB reports are frequently admitted into evidence in litigation there is the possibility that this would deter some people who are able to assist from doing so.
Witnesses may perceive a risk of their being called to give evidence or even made defendants in subsequent legal proceedings. Witness cooperation may be less forthcoming and they are likely to be more guarded in what they say.
Investigators may now have to mention to those concerned that any report is admissible in civil proceedings. (IMHO, there is a strong argument that they should now give such a warning.)

If, as is very likely given human nature, those factors caused the second occupant to fear being sued, then there is a real risk that he would not give be entirely forthcoming when asked about the accident.

In the accident you mentioned the pilot was killed, but the same considerations apply to pilots who survive.

_________

The implications of the decision for the conduct of litigation is just one factor.

The other is more immediately relevant to aviators: aviation safety.

Given the objectives of an AAIB investigation, anything that undermines its ability to obtain truthful information is obviously detrimental to aviation safety.

If people who could assist an investigation are not full and frank in the information they disclose, even for understandable reasons, then the AAIB is not in a position to make appropriate safety recommendations with the objective of preventing future accidents.

[Flying Lawyer]

Thomas coupling
Why is it that when someone points out errors, the CAA don't correct the report?

The CAA (like other interested parties) is entitled to submit comments for consideration by the AAIB at the draft stage before the final report is published but it has no power to "correct" a report.
Rightly so, IMHO. There are occasions when the AAIB makes adverse comments about a role played by the CAA. The CAA should not have power to remove them.
There is nothing to prevent the CAA from stating publicly that it does not accept AAIB findings/recommendations. It sometimes does.

I was reassured to read that the Chief Inspector emphasised the independence of the AAIB and, in particular, express concern that it should not be drawn into litigation. I have had professional experience of a very different attitude.

In a criminal case in which I was involved as defence counsel which arose from a fatal accident, far from maintaining independence, the most active (not most senior) inspector became far too close to the police during their investigation.
That was very obvious at the preliminary court hearings. He was not only huddled in private conversation with the police/prosecution team before and after the hearings - I suppose they could have been discussing the weather - but even sat with them during the hearings.

The AAIB did not support my objection to the report being used in evidence.

In the same case, it was suggested to me by a now retired senior person in the AAIB that it should become involved in the trial as independent expert witnesses. I rejected the suggestion, partly because I did not regard the particular inspector (the one mentioned above) as independent and partly because our own experts had found significant flaws in the AAIB's findings and reasoning.
The disputes were not resolved because, for other reasons, the case did not ultimately proceed to trial.

The AAIB has an excellent reputation which in my view is justified. However, contrary to assumption by some people (including some in these forums), the AAIB makes mistakes from time to time – just like the rest of us.

Being independent does not mean always being right.

.

[ShyTorque]

FL, thanks for your reply. Much as I thought, I will in future be extremely cautious about speaking to the AAIB. I hope I never have cause to do so!

[Jwscud]

Flying Lawyer, thank you for your erudite responses.

As a former professional sailor and current professional pilot, I have had at the back of my mind in this discussion the manslaughter trial of Michael Hubble, Officer of the Watch on the Pride of Bilbao regarding the crew of the yacht Ouzo.

In that case, the MAIB were of the "firm opinion" that the Pride of Bilbao had been involved in a close encounter with the Ouzo, and it was following the publication of their report that the prosecution was undertaken my the MCA (the maritime version of the CAA) enforcement branch.

That case (in my view rightly but for different reasons) resulted in an acquittal, as I suspect would any criminal case based on this accident.

Like ShyTorque, in any accident where criminal liability might come into play, I would seek legal advice before any interview with the AAIB.

Also relevant, but in a different jurisdiction (and in this case contested by BALPA) is the Scottish police investigation into the crash of G-WNSB on approach to Sumburgh.

Fundamentally, unless there is clear evidence of negligence I do not view the criminal courts as an appropriate avenue for restitution following fatal accidents.

[airpolice]

I am still wondering:


Why is it that when someone points out errors, the AAIB don't correct the report?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I am still wondering:
As somebody who spends a lot of his life writing technical reports - a significant number of them over the years about bent flying machines of all shapes and sizes, some aspects of how AAIB currently work trouble me. Others don't.

With regard to that particular point, I think that if you interrogated the Chief Inspector about this the answer you'd get is along the lines of the real reason for AAIB reports is to make recommendations that are intended to prevent future accidents. If they had evidence which made a recommendation AAIB had made invalid, or which gave reason to issue a new recommendation - I think that they would do so.

However, from AAIB's viewpoint the primary purpose of the investigation is as a tool to enable generation of useful recommendations. If changed facts do not change those recommendations, then I think that in AAIB's collective mind, that doesn't create a reason to amend the report.

I don't necessarily support that viewpoint, but I think that's what they're thinking. Another point of-course is that just because somebody thinks that AAIB's facts are wrong, doesn't mean that AAIB thinks so.


AAIB reports in many ways are extremely useful and thorough reports, and very useful material for all sorts of developing design studies and safety investigations. But I'll add another criticism which, to my mind puts AAIB in the dark ages - they fail to properly cite most of their data sources. When I write a report - whether for a court or some other purpose such as academic research, I am normally required and expected to clearly identify all of my main sources of information. (The regulations for expert witnesses require that, as do all guides to best practice in technical writing.) That AAIB do not, probably improves their readability, but at the same time significantly degrades their utility for technical grown-ups wanting to make use of them (or I suspect people like FL and his colleagues, if they have reason to challenge them.)

G

[smarthawke]

I am still wondering:

Strange, the monthly AAIB Bulletins I receive often have corrections to previous reports in the back.

[NutLoose]

UPDATE

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Factor201601.pdf

[Alber Ratman]

Several points brought up in the last few pages about AAIB and CAA interactions, views on points and disagreements clearly illustrated.

[Treble one]

Final AAIB report on this incident possibly due this week coming.

[Arfur Dent]

Let's hope so as the Airshow season is nearly upon us and all those FJ display pilots need to get their practice in before strutting their stuff.
BBMF should be extended to include historic fast jets so that pilot currency can be properly regulated and supervised.

[Pontius Navigator]

Arfur, interesting proposition. Bring in a contractor to run BBMF; require civilian historics to pay the contractor for oversight thus funding BBMF.

That'll work well.

[Thomas coupling]

CAA report out tomorrow I believe.............watch this space.

[Flying Lawyer]

The CAA report is available now: UK civil air display review: final report (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201400%20APR16%20(embargoed).pdf)
It was embargoed until midnight.


Treble one
Final AAIB report on this incident possibly due this week coming.
You may be right, but I'd be surprised.

[Swiss Cheese]

The AAIB stated at the pre Inquest review hearing last month that the draft report should be done by the early summer, then following the consultation process, published in final format, hopefully, by September 2016.

Meanwhile the Sussex Police are in the High Court asking for "key evidence" held by the AAIB to be released. Again, a decision on that is expected in the Summer.

Next pre Inquest review hearing is September 19th, to take stock of events etc.

[Treble one]

I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick FL, apologies.

I was at a meeting at Duxford at the weekend and Shoreham and its effect on airshows was one of the topics discussed by the CAA representative-He did mention that 'the report would be out this week'-clearly he was referring to this document not the AAIB report.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I find it interesting that the CAA feel content to issue a "final" report before presumably they've seen AAIB's final report. The implication of that, to me, is that CAA value their own analysis and recommendations above the eventual ones from AAIB.

G

[Flugplatz]

Gengis,

Between now and the date the AAIB report is going to come out there is the summer display season, so I don't think it is unreasonable for the CAA to put the measures in now. You will probably find some display pilots and organisers will still have to scrabble about to meet the new restrictions and approvals in time, anyway!

I am sure this 'final' report may end up being adjusted in the detail following feedback from this year's displays, and the eventual AAIB report findings.

Flug

[Genghis the Engineer]

It was the concept of it being "final" that I was questioning, rather than the appropriateness of the CAA taking those actions at-all.

G

[Courtney Mil]

"Final" as in the final version of this report.

[Pozidrive]

I find it interesting that the CAA feel content to issue a "final" report before presumably they've seen AAIB's final report. The implication of that, to me, is that CAA value their own analysis and recommendations above the eventual ones from AAIB.

G

But Ghengis, the CAA report is about air display flying in general, it isn't a "final" report on the Shoreham incident.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Point taken - although it was initiated as a result of Shoreham, and the introduction by Dame Dierdre.H starts..

We commenced this Review of UK Civil Air Displays the morning after the tragic
accident at Shoreham in August last year,

Although she does go on to say that AAIB are investigating the specific accident, and CAA may make further changes after the publication of that report.

I was misled by the headlines, particularly the one on the Flyer website (and their twitter feed) which says..

CAA issues final report on Shoreham Airshow crash

Which as you've pointed out, was a rather misleading headline.

G

[skridlov]

But Ghengis, the CAA report is about air display flying in general, it isn't a "final" report on the Shoreham incident.
Not to mention the fact that the link is a dead end...

[Pozidrive]

Not to mention the fact that the link is a dead end...


Yes, but a quick google will find it.

[Flying Lawyer]

Genghis

The introduction by Dame Dierdre Hutton states very clearly:I should first make clear that this has not been an investigation into the accident at Shoreham.


The original link does not work consistently.

Try this: CAP1400: UK civil air display review: final report (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7318)

[Background Noise]

Here's the link to the download page.

CAP1400: UK civil air display review: final report (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=7318)

The point is, that 'This is the final report from our Civil Air Display Review' - not the AAIB.

[Genghis the Engineer]

FL - yes.

My sin here is that I had Flyer up in another window, and their headline said "CAA issues final report on Shoreham Airshow crash"; which was clearly not the case - as I'd already corrected above.

G

[alf5071h]

FL, et al, relating to the discussion circa #1490; the resume and comments on the book chapter at https://hfeinpractice.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/chapter-5-human-factors-and-the-ethics-of-explaining-failure/ provides an interesting view on the related aspects.

Note the point about where you start an investigation (frame of reference). Seeking understanding and learning might consider the wider system and the process interaction (flight safety), but those seeking retribution might be more likely to focus on the human, error and blame (legal process).
What you look for is what you find.

The preceding and following chapters consider other aspects; indeed the whole book review is worth reading for a practitioner / academic view of 'their' subject. But perhaps we and they should consider who are the real practitioners, the people doing the job or those who believe that they know how the job is or should be done; and of course whether this view is before or after an event.
Where is the real gap between the views of human factors?

[Yellowjack99]

Are the Hunters now flying, I think one was climbing out of Kemble this morning?

[hunty]

The one you saw fly out of Kemble today was T-7 XL577, which was starting it flight to Jorden with a c/s of RJAF577. It flew to Friedrichshafen then onto Jorden.

[Above The Clouds]

Yellowjack99
Are the Hunters now flying, I think one was climbing out of Kemble this morning?

I believe it flew on air an test the other week as well.

Hunty
The one you saw fly out of Kemble today was T-7 XL577, which was starting it flight to Jorden with a c/s of RJAF577. It flew to Friedrichshafen then onto Jorden.

So in essence civilian Hunter's are not grounded ! or there must be scope from within the CAA to provide dispensation to allow civilian Hunter's to fly ?

[Pontius Navigator]

ATC, how do you figure RJAF is a civil reg?

[GeeRam]

So in essence civilian Hunter's are not grounded ! or there must be scope from within the CAA to provide dispensation to allow civilian Hunter's to fly ?

I'm guessing it's a special dispensation for air test and flight out of the country as it's being exported off the G register...?

The CAA gave a similar dispensation 20 odd years ago for the Buccaneer's that were not allowed to fly on G-reg in UK but were allowed to be airtested and then flown out of the UK on their ferry flights down to Thunder City in SA.

[Above The Clouds]

how do you figure RJAF is a civil reg?

I am not as that was the callsign not necessarily the reg and as she is/was civil registered as G-XMHD up to Feb 2016, just asking the question.

Would seem a touch cynical to stop it flying on the civil register then allow the same airframe to fly in UK airspace if the registration has been changed to a foreign one, the CAA website doesn't state transferred to the RJAF, so it would be interesting to know if it was returned to a military airframe again under the RJAF just to get around the grounding of civil Hunters ?

[Pontius Navigator]

Fair enough

[sycamore]

AtC,if you check GINFO,it was de-reg. in Feb2016,to RJAF.....

[Above The Clouds]

scyamore; It does not state the RJAF, it states, 'Transferred to another country or authority - JORDAN'

[NutLoose]

He is now being investigated for manslaughter

Shoreham crash pilot investigated for manslaughter - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-36743282)

[Caramba]

Just to point out that the news release states that AH was interviewed under caution in December, so this is not a new development. It has only come to light because the police want access to the info collected by the AAIB and hence have had to go to the High Court.

[Effluent Man]

Pilot being investigated for possible manslaughter charges by Sussex Police.

[Heathrow Harry]

Also explains why they were reluctant to comment ..........

[Piltdown Man]

The interesting thing about this case is that no matter what is in the AAIB report, they can be second guessed by Plod and his pals. The reason they don't investigate accidents in the first place is because they are not trained or equipped to do so. This is outside their area of expertise. At best they can ask a few so called experts, who have a different opinion to the AAIB, for their opinion. At worst, they can... the mind boggles. Remember, all The Filth want to do is nail you against the wall. They are certainly not interested in proving anyone's innocence.

The bottom line is if Plod win this one, the AAIB become the enemy. Why? Because anything they find can and will be used against you.

PM

[Arfur Dent]

How the authorities allow someone to get a DA on a Jet Provost and then display a Hawker Hunter is beyond belief.
How the authorities don't demand further action against display pilots whose actual display manoeuvres are deemed to be so dangerously incompetent that they are given a "Stop" order on more than one occasion is beyond belief.
And all this with minimal flying hours on the actual display aircraft and virtually zero practice.
Talk about "an accident waiting to happen".
Of course he should be charged with manslaughter but so should those who authorised him in the months and years leading up to this catastrophe.

[Cows getting bigger]

There's a very interesting and soul-searching set of questions here. On the one hand, our industry strives for an open-and-honest reporting culture. In fact, we now use the word 'just' and there is a (misguided?) belief that honesty brings a degree of protection. In the same breath, we cannot be protected from the rule of law and it's consequences. The bottom line is that legal types will pour over and make a legal interpretation the 'endangerment' clause of the ANO:

138 Endangering safety of any person or property
A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

Clearly, there will be endless discussion about the terms 'negligent' and/or 'reckless'. Personally, I'll be fascinated to see how this progresses, not just because of the specific occurrence.

[dastocks]

As I said some time ago in one of the other threads: If a number of dead and seriously injured people turn up on their patch, the Police are under a duty to investigate the circumstances and provide evidence to the CPS, who then decide if a prosecution is in order.

The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation. In fact if you were to talk to any of the officers involved you would probably find that that they would rather *not* be doing it.

[Two's in]

I know the rhetoric is more exciting and inflammatory, but the CPS view of Manslaughter is reasonably clear cut;

Homicide; Murder and Manslaughter: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#manslaughter)

The Breach of the Duty of Care

The ordinary law of negligence applies to these cases, in that those with an established duty of care, must act as a "reasonable person would do in their position". If they fail to do so they will have breached that duty. This is an objective test and will be based upon the defendant's position at the time of the breach.

Therefore, if the defendant has acted within the range of what was generally accepted as being the standard practice (even if it is at the lower end) it will be difficult to describe such behaviour as falling far below the standard of a reasonable person in his position.

An unqualified person is not to be judged at a lower standard than a qualified person. Therefore the lack of skill will not be a defence if the conduct is deemed negligent. If however, the defendant has particular skills and knowledge of a danger that the reasonable person would not have, his actions should be judged in the light of those skills or knowledge. This test is an objective test.

It does not matter that the defendant did not appreciate the risk (the foreseeable risk of death) only that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendant's position. (R v DPP ex parte Jones 2000 CLR 858 and AG ref No: 2 of 1999 3 All ER 182.)
The Grossness of the Breach

It is for a jury to decide whether the defendant's conduct was so bad, in all the circumstances, as to amount to a criminal act or omission. In R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328, the court agreed with the direction by the judge that the term 'reprehensible' would be apt to describe the nature of the conduct.

[Caramba]

Argue Dent, I find your post just a tad irritating.

Unless you have a hotline to the AAIB you have no idea what their findings may or may not be.

I doubt that AH has been given multiple stop instructions. If you are thinking of the Southport incident I believe he was departing the area when the DD issued the stop. I am unaware of any other incidents.

You can have no idea if the pilot has "forgiven himself" or not.

As previously stated in this thread, the pilot was an RAF QFI, had plenty of time in Harriers and I guess Hawks, regularly displayed an RV-8 as well as the JP.

He would - must have been - displaying under the terms of his DA.

The police are obliged to investigate, but that does not imply guilt, or even a charge .

So perhaps desist with the "of course he must be prosecuted". Hmm?

Caramba

[Genghis the Engineer]

The interesting thing about this case is that no matter what is in the AAIB report, they can be second guessed by Plod and his pals. The reason they don't investigate accidents in the first place is because they are not trained or equipped to do so. This is outside their area of expertise. At best they can ask a few so called experts, who have a different opinion to the AAIB, for their opinion. At worst, they can... the mind boggles. Remember, all The Filth want to do is nail you against the wall. They are certainly not interested in proving anyone's innocence.

I think that I'd express it slightly differently.

Police objective: find out if anybody has committed a crime, if they have, who, and aim to successfully prosecute them.

AAIB objective: find out if anything from this accident could have been prevented, if so, publish recommendations to try and avoid future similar or related accidents.

Whilst they have similar investigative powers, they have totally different objectives - and so it's inevitable that they will cut across each other.

Realistically - the police must be constantly investigating crimes (or potential crimes) where they don't have in-house expertise, and calling that in from outside.

G

[Courtney Mil]

Dear Arfur Dent,

Just a couple of points about your post there.

How the authorities allow someone to get a DA on a Jet Provost and then display a Hawker Hunter is beyond belief.

AH was issued an Aircraft Type Rating Exemption (Full) by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) on 27 August 2014 enabling him to fly the Hawker Hunter, Jet Provost Mk 1-5 and Strikemaster aeroplanes, valid until 27 August 2015. He held a European Union Class 1 Medical Certificate with no limitations, issued on 20 January 2015 and valid until 31 January 2016.

He held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard3 category aerobatic manoeuvres.

How the authorities don't demand further action against display pilots whose actual display manoeuvres are deemed to be so dangerously incompetent that they are given a "Stop" order on more than one occasion is beyond belief.

I only know of one occasion. There was no statement that his display manoeuvres were deemed "dangerously incompetent".

Why the pilot himself is allowed to be so delusional that he personally forgives himself is beyond belief.

Has he said that to you? If not, who has he said it to?

And all this with minimal flying hours on the actual display aircraft and virtually zero practice.

He had also met the requirement stipulated in Schedule 2 of his DA to have flown:

‘three full display sequences, one of which was on the aircraft to be displayed, not more than 90 days prior to the flight in question.’

From the pilot’s electronic logbook, it was established that the pilot had flown a total of 40.25 hours in the Hunter since 26 May 2011, of which 9.7 hours had been flown in the last 90 days and 2.1 hours in the last 28 days. He had also flown air displays in other types of aircraft, and the investigation will study his other logbooks for further information.

Of course he should be charged with manslaughter but so should those who authorised him in the months and years leading up to this catastrophe.

Police only charge people if they have evidence that a crime has been committed. I do not recall them claiming any such thing. They have purely stated that they are investigating as we already knew and as is their duty.

[Wander00]

Do I take it Arfur Den is a Daily Mail reader

[thrusts a must]

Arfur,
I agree with you entirely. Others may not have had the same fj display experience, and their comments should be viewed accordingly.

[Courtney Mil]

Thrusts a must,

But plenty do. And Arfur's comments are clearly contradicted by even the first AAIB report. The post is emotive and inconsistent with the CURRENTLY released facts.

[NutLoose]

As I said some time ago in one of the other threads: If a number of dead and seriously injured people turn up on their patch, the Police are under a duty to investigate the circumstances and provide evidence to the CPS, who then decide if a prosecution is in order.

The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation. In fact if you were to talk to any of the officers involved you would probably find that that they would rather *not* be doing it.

True, but as the police have no expertise in aviation accident research surely they must seek that from those that do, evidence that will have been gathered, examined and conclusions reached as to the cause, based on the evidence collated.
What extra can PC plod gain from that gathered evidence and the experts employed to determine the cause, if the police bring in a third party to view the said evidence, surely that can only come to the same conclusions or otherwise the evidence will be seen as flawed and also the findings.
Will there not be issues if some of that evidence was given to the AAIB confidentially?

[PhilipG]

In a way the question being asked here is has an AAIB report ever been used as the basis for a prosecution? If the AAIB find there was a material failing and publish such, the CPS decide to prosecute, the AAIB staff can be called as expert witnesses, so no conflict of interest.

[alfred_the_great]

I'm not sure why, under a 'just' safety culture there is any conflict, whatsoever, between allowing for people to learn from mistakes, and punishing people who have made a mistake.

It's the difference between punishing someone who ND'd a rifle when they've not been provided with any training, and were pushed into a situation they were unfamiliar with, and punishing someone who is up to date with WHT and was using the rifle in an inappropriate manner.

[NutLoose]

There is Alfred, it has happened before where engineers were interviewed in relation to a crash ( in the US I think ) and on the basis of their testament, some of them were prosecuted, some if I remember over issues that arose but were unrelated.....
You cannot run an accident enquiry and expect people to give evidence to assist in determining the root cause of an accident, if that information will be used to prosecute those giving it...
It will never happen again, indeed there is a culture forming now where people will simply refuse to give evidence and the possibility from that will arise that the true cause of an accident may not be found and others may die needlessly as a result.

[Genghis the Engineer]

"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".

G

[tarantonight]

The 'Building Blocks' of an investigation are the same regardless of the severity or otherwise of an incident.
You
A previous poster has stated the police do not have experience of investigating aviation accidents which is actually not altogether correct. There will always be some police involvement.

Where an investigation involves an area which is not the norm, experts in whichever field is relevant will be utilised.

It should also be noted that police investigations will focus on ALL aspects of an incident / occurrence.

Forget the bad press, the vast majority of 'PC Plod' do the right thing. 'DC Plod', who will be investigating this incident, is unlikely to leave any stone unturned.

The facts will be presented as they are. I for one do not wish for a Witch-hunt.

TN.

[Stupidbutsaveable]

"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".

G

In principle it shouldn't happen for mistakes; gross negligence maybe.

[just another jocky]

"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".


I'm not sure what the AAIB/CAA/Civ Pol use, but the MAA use the DA FAiR model for determining culpability.


Page 38 of 46 (Ch 3 Annex C). (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418976/MAS_Issue_5.pdf) - the easier-to-follow flowchart is on page 44 - 45 (App 2 to Annex C of Ch 3).

[alfred_the_great]

There is Alfred, it has happened before where engineers were interviewed in relation to a crash ( in the US I think ) and on the basis of their testament, some of them were prosecuted, some if I remember over issues that arose but were unrelated.....
You cannot run an accident enquiry and expect people to give evidence to assist in determining the root cause of an accident, if that information will be used to prosecute those giving it...
It will never happen again, indeed there is a culture forming now where people will simply refuse to give evidence and the possibility from that will arise that the true cause of an accident may not be found and others may die needlessly as a result.
I'm sorry, but a pilot can't just walk away from an accident that may have been caused from his faults and simply say 'flight safety, can't hold me responsible'.

I am willing to admit there may be a series of holes lining up, but the pilot cannot simply be absolved. And if others involved in flight safety are willing to risk other peoples' lives because they are unable or unwilling to defend their decisions, then I suggest they need to stop being involved in flying operations.

[jindabyne]

Courtney,

Whilst I share entirely the sentiments in your last post, I presume we could reasonably debate that AH's recent and indisputable Hunter experience was far short of that required for carrying out a low level aeros display - regardless of his currency on other types.

[Just This Once...]

My thoughts too. I also cannot imagine a service pilot receiving his display auth in a Tucano before strapping themselves to a Hawk borrowed from a mate.

Displaying vintage swept-wing jets is a relatively new discipline as, quite simply, there was no such thing available outside of the military. I would argue that both common sense and sensible rules failed to make the fast-jet conversion.

[NutLoose]

Alfred that wasn't what I was trying to get across, I was trying to show that total honesty and openness by individuals in helping the investigation to move forward can and has as such, lead to prosecution of those individuals, and with human nature as it is, it means that vital evidence in determining the cause and thus preventing it happening again will be buried.
In the past there was always an open and frank exchange of information that would be given freely for the benefit of safety, unfortunately in the modern world of a blame culture, accidents, failings in procedures and errors no longer exist.
I am not saying that people should not be prosecuted if it is a blatant case, but I am saying that it does have a negative effect on flight safety, and I won't even mention the poor state of affairs where accountable managers come into it all.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

In the past there was always an open and frank exchange of information that would be given freely for the benefit of safety

The nature of aviation accidents often means there is no one left to have a "frank exchange of information" with. In this particular case, as many have noted, it's reasonable to expect that the pilot would not be able to recall precisely what happened due to the severity of his injuries and the amount of time that passed before he could be interviewed.

Speaking generally, I don't think there was ever a time in history when people weren't self-serving and motivated to cover up reckless acts. It would be very rare to have someone say "Yeah, I thought it would be fun to [commit reckless act]."

Fortunately, in modern times we have an amazing ability to analyze wreckage and we often have access to recorded data that precisely reveals what happened. That sort of evidence doesn't involve relying on "frank exchanges". In this case there are numerous video recordings that show in great detail what happened. Video recorders aren't going to start lying or refuse to cooperate if they are used in the police investigation.

Speaking generally again, in cases where there has been a "conscious, substantial and unjustifiable disregard for risk", how to you prevent future occurrences? I think the threat of prosecution is going to do a lot more than an AAIB report.

It's certainly gotten the attention of a lot of self-described display pilots on PPrune, and I think that's a good thing.

[NutLoose]

Quote:


Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer View Post

"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".

G

In principle it shouldn't happen for mistakes; gross negligence maybe.

Unfortunately in the last few years things have changed, and in my eyes not for the better, the CAA have basically stated that you do not need to adhere to parts of the maintenance manuals, something that was previously cast in stone and the gotcha for all of those that fail to carry out the required work, but now by the fact it is left up to the individual (quite wrongly in my eyes) it can open up a can of worms in personal interpretation as to what is and is not required, and that can in itself lead to maintenance being budget orientated and not safety.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

Is when the AAIB estimated they will publish the final report.
No doubt most of us will read that report with great interest as to how aviation safety can be improved. As for sensation seeking journos and trolls, may the mods continue to moderate them.....

[Arfur Dent]

Courtney - Let me say I admire many of your posts and understand that you are a knowledgeable 'witness' in all of this.

Firstly, I should acknowledge that some of my comments were judgemental which is not my style. I am ex FJ and automatically sympathise with the pilot when things go wrong so let's get that out of the way. I have removed the "forgiveness" part of my post too because it was wrongly interpreted as referring to Shoreham when I meant that he had carried on without changing anything after the "STOP" order(s) - I was told there were 2 but stand corrected.
What I find most extraordinary is the way that you list AH's recent "experience" as though it answers those of us questioning his fitness (i.e. recent experience/practice) to display such a high performance jet.

40.25 hours in the last FIVE YEARS - 8 hours a year!
3 hours a month in the last 3 months.
2 hours in the last 28 days.

AND he flew commercial jets for a living AND he displayed a low performance Jet Provost AND flew in a piston display team.

The hours above are just about enough to remain current - let alone carry out low level display aerobatics. As you know, Courtney, RAF display pilots were full time professionals on the ONE type they displayed. They did their job (say, 3 trips a day) and practiced their aeros after work - much to the delight of people like me who would always stop and watch. You would never get a full time Herc pilot driving somewhere to do a Hunter display, and then next weekend displaying a JP! It should never happen and, hopefully will never happen again.

Manslaughter? Not sure really but I think I know what the relatives of the poor innocents on the A27 would think.

All in all, a huge tragedy on many levels and so easily avoidable.

[Brian W May]

WE DO NOT KNOW THE FULL STORY.

Notwithstanding the above statement. But on what we have seen, I reckon the intention of the police is justified, all my sympathy is with the next of kin - most/none of whom had not invited ANY risk as they weren't even attending the air display.

Only one person had control of the flight path . . .

[Tourist]

Wall my sympathy is with the next of kin - most/none of whom had not invited ANY risk as they weren't even attending the air display. .

Everybody invites risk the moment they leave their oxygen tent in a hardened bunker.

Life is a sequence of mostly uninvited risks. Why single out aviation?

The risk of being hit by a falling hunter is so miniscule compared to the risk of driving down that road that I seriously wonder if there is anyone left in this country who understands risk assessments.

[Heathrow Harry]

"The risk of being hit by a falling hunter is so miniscule compared to the risk of driving down that road"

but on that one day the risk of being hit by a Hunter turned out to be 100%............

OK that is the .00001% chance but it still happened and so it has to be investigated and , if necessary, there will be a court case

[salad-dodger]

The risk of being hit by a falling hunter is so miniscule compared to the risk of driving down that road that I seriously wonder if there is anyone left in this country who understands risk assessments.

That would be you then Tourist, because in the first part of the sentence above you are talking about probability and not risk. You have included the consequence - being hit by the Hunter (I think we can safely say that will be curtains). The combination of the two is risk, but then you knew that didn't you.

S-D

[Alber Ratman]

"Just culture"doesn't mean prosecution if you make a mistake, it means a proper investigation should be made and no blame attached unless deliberate violations are proven to have taken place. I have made mistakes and had reports raised against me. The interview procedure was to find out why I had made that mistake and try to stop it happening again. And Nutty, the CAA follow the EASA rule that if you certify work, it is done in accordance with specific maintenance documentation. Certainly is the policy of my companies engineering management, they never condon pick and choosing the way of doing tasks outside the manuals instructions. I have grounded aircraft because I do not have the right bolt and the company have always never put pressure on me to use illegal alternates.

[Tourist]

That would be you then Tourist, because in the first part of the sentence above you are talking about probability and not risk. You have included the consequence - being hit by the Hunter (I think we can safely say that will be curtains). The combination of the two is risk, but then you knew that didn't you.

S-D

Well done salad. You have pedantically pointed out the semantic error in my post.



Feel better now?

[Tourist]

but on that one day the risk of being hit by a Hunter turned out to be 100%............

OK that is the .00001% chance but it still happened and so it has to be investigated and , if necessary, there will be a court case

Where do I start..?

1. Many many thousands of cars used that road "on that one day". The vast majority were not hit.

2. As Salad kindly pointed out, it's a probability not a risk, and it was not 100% even for the cars that were hit. Even 1 in a million chances happen once in a while.

3. You are going to have to add an awful lot more zeros to your % chance estimate, otherwise 1 in every 100,000 cars that ever passed down that road in the last 50 years would be wiped out. I'm pretty sure that that has not happened...

[dervish]

So Tourist, are you advocating we don't do risk assessments and mitigation, or just that we don't investigate accidents where the probability of occurrence was quite low?

[Tourist]

I'm advocating that we do do investigations, but that we should not automatically make changes to stop the event happening again.

We should look at the effect on the rest of life that any changes will make, and balance that against the likelihood of it happening again and the consequences if it did.

For example.

After the first aircraft in history crashed onto a person on the ground, we could have decided to stop this event ever happening again.
To achieve this we would have to stop all flying. This would be effective, but rather an over-reaction.

If there was an easy change that increased safety without greatly impacting other areas, then of course make the changes.

In flight safety regulations however, the easy miles have already been walked over the last 50 yrs. Every change we now make has miniscule to zero effect on safety yet huge impact on aviation.

This is very plain if you look at the graphs of crashes vs air miles over course of aviation's history. It is a pretty flat line after a steep improvement since the start of flight safety in the bad old 50s/60s.

We seem to have forgotten what it means to accept a 1 in a million chance. That means that once in a while the event will happen.

This is as expected.
This requires no changes.
This means we are operating as intended.
We should accept this!

If we want less than this then why say we accept 1 in a million?

[dervish]

TVM Tourist and I see where you're coming from and agree. But what about the first part of the question, risk assessment and mitigation. IIRC, a while back you said you were 'glad' that a suggestion to mitigate risks or hazards had been rejected, followed by multiple fatalities.

[salad-dodger]

Well done salad. You have pedantically pointed out the semantic error in my post.
Not a problem Tourist. Helping you with basics like this is fairly easy. You seemed to have coped quite well with this simple lesson.

It's a bit more of a challenge to educate you in some of the more fundamental aspects of risk management - like the need for it!

Many on here have tried, but I fear it is time wasted with you.

S-D

[NutLoose]

I see the Hunter and airshows as an easy target with few users, driven by a press, yes it is a tragedy people died and everyone from the pilot down, myself included, if they could right that wrong, they would.
BUT you do not get a knee jerk reaction as this elsewhere , refuse trucks are still in Scotland collecting rubbish, Ferries still sailing across the Channel from Zeebrugge, Airliners still flying over the Alps. True we learnt from these things, but sad as it is, financial implications rule the roost.

[NutLoose]

"Just culture"doesn't mean prosecution if you make a mistake, it means a proper investigation should be made and no blame attached unless deliberate violations are proven to have taken place. I have made mistakes and had reports raised against me. The interview procedure was to find out why I had made that mistake and try to stop it happening again. And Nutty, the CAA follow the EASA rule that if you certify work, it is done in accordance with specific maintenance documentation. Certainly is the policy of my companies engineering management, they never condon pick and choosing the way of doing tasks outside the manuals instructions. I have grounded aircraft because I do not have the right bolt and the company have always never put pressure on me to use illegal alternates. Alber it changed in my eyes when they brought in the SID inspections on Cessna's, they were originally issued as a SB, which EASA and the CAA said was not a mandatory requirement, Cessna then added them to the Maintenance manuals and the CAA then told me that the only thing that was mandatory in the manual was those items in Chapter 4 the EASA approved Airworthiness Limitations, now that stunned me so I did have a long discussion through emails on this and basically those items in the type cert and Chapter 4 were the parts they deemed mandatory, this was compounded by the fact that some of the Cessna publications were written pre ATA 100 so their limitations are published in Chapter 2, as they are not in Chapter 4 they are not recognised, it gets worse, querying it with Cessna I was more or less told they would not rewrite the manuals as it would then bring about another period of product liability. So getting back to the SID inspections for aging aircraft in the maintenance manuals I asked again and was told I could ignore them, so you now have a situation where it can be construed as it is up to the individual as to what parts of the manual they actually comply with.... Ohh and to put another cog in this barmy wheel, some countries in EASA such as Germany I believe made them mandatory.... So you now have a situation where EASA was brought about to standardise the maintenance and operation across Europe, except EASA have allowed individual countries to decide whether to make them mandatory... the total opposite of what EASA is supposed to be.... BTW I do them.

[Jwscud]

I see the Hunter and airshows as an easy target with few users, driven by a press, yes it is a tragedy people died and everyone from the pilot down, myself included, if they could right that wrong, they would.
BUT you do not get a knee jerk reaction as this elsewhere , refuse trucks are still in Scotland collecting rubbish, Ferries still sailing across the Channel from Zeebrugge, Airliners still flying over the Alps. True we learnt from these things, but sad as it is, financial implications rule the roost.

Not a very helpful analogy. Herald of Free Enterprise was run in a shockingly unsafe manner from bottom to top. It was a landmark in Maritime safety, and led to the creation of both the MAIB and to an offence of corporate manslaughter due to the awful conduct of the board of directors.

The formal enquiry is well worth a read for students of organisational safety.

[tucumseh]

Jwscud

Herald of Free Enterprise is constantly cited by MoD when discussing the need to re-introduce the concept of managing safety, so in that sense I believe it a very fair analogy. MoD safety management was run in a "shockingly unsafe manner from top to bottom", albeit with a few exceptions where some staff refused to commit offences. RAF Cranwell recommended that students read the report, but not too openly as at the time (1990s) it contradicted RAF policy.

[salad-dodger]

BUT you do not get a knee jerk reaction as this elsewhere , refuse trucks are still in Scotland collecting rubbish, Ferries still sailing across the Channel from Zeebrugge, Airliners still flying over the Alps. True we learnt from these things, but sad as it is, financial implications rule the roost.
I am surprised this post hasn't attracted adverse comments before now, because the analogies that Nutloose has made or some of the most crass I have seen. Tic, you are right in the Herald is a much studied example, as are Piper Alpha, Kings Cross etc. And indeed these massive failures were in the main what led to the sea change in safety management in the UK.

However, comparing the events that Nut has cited to Shoreham is particularly bone headed. He has compared activities from which people gain real tangible benefits, e.g. refuse collection, travel, transport (people, food, goods etc) with an airshow. Yes, leisure activities are important too, but in this case (and others), it seems more about an individual satisfying his lust for flying with doing it an airshow somehow legitimising the risk or more likely, helping to fund it. What many on here seem to forget is that in assessing risk, the benefits gained from taking the risk need to be considered. Airshows provide entertainment. The activities that Nut uses as a comparison provide far, far more.

Leisure activities and entertainment are a vital part of life by the way, but when one persons entertainment exposes others to risk, then that person has to think very carefully about the consequences if things go wrong, because individuals can and should be held to account.

S-D

[tucumseh]

What many on here seem to forget is that in assessing risk, the benefits gained from taking the risk need to be considered.

This is very true. Of equal concern is the failure to recognise the difference between risks and certainties; and that risk acceptance is ok but gambling is not.

[salad-dodger]

Good point Tuc, but if you can show me a certainty, then I will be neither taking a risk or gambling if I know the outcome.

S-D

[tucumseh]

S-D

I was looking at it from the viewpoint of assessing risks and developing risk mitigation plans, while being allowed to proceed with the activity. If the probability of occurrence is 100% (a certainty) and the impact or outcome is not what you wish, then one is not permitted to proceed until you've reduced the certainty to "only" a risk. Perhaps not a great example in this case, but whenever initiating an upgrade programme the probability (after about 1992) of not having a valid safety case was 100% (as it was not policy), so one had to first let a risk reduction contract to create one or resurrect the lapsed one, before being allowed to commit more money. That's what I meant by certainty. You don't proceed knowing it exists. Apply, for example, to Nimrod MRA4. There was a "no go" situation, mandated by Secy of State, 16 years before the fleet was scrapped.

[Chronus]

In a way the question being asked here is has an AAIB report ever been used as the basis for a prosecution? If the AAIB find there was a material failing and publish such, the CPS decide to prosecute, the AAIB staff can be called as expert witnesses, so no conflict of interest.
Yes an AAIB report was used, see Rogers -v- Hoyle [2014] EWCA Civ 257, the Tiger Moth crash.
This is what Sydney Dekker says about " Just Culture".
"A just culture is meant to balance learning from
incidents with accountability for their consequences."
My understanding of the above is the learning from to avoid repetition purpose of air accident investigation balanced with holding all those responsible for the accident thorough the system of justice.

[NutLoose]

Thanks Chronus for raising the thread, I hadn't realised SD had posted a load of sh*te and it gives me a chance to reply.

I am surprised this post hasn't attracted adverse comments before now, because the analogies that Nutloose has made or some of the most crass I have seen. Tic, you are right in the Herald is a much studied example, as are Piper Alpha, Kings Cross etc. And indeed these massive failures were in the main what led to the sea change in safety management in the UK.

Some as already mentioned have been addressed as examples on here, so I see know point in addressing this as it has already been covered in using the ferry disaster as an example.

However, comparing the events that Nut has cited to Shoreham is particularly bone headed. He has compared activities from which people gain real tangible benefits, e.g. refuse collection, travel, transport (people, food, goods etc) with an airshow. Yes, leisure activities are important too, but in this case (and others), it seems more about an individual satisfying his lust for flying with doing it an airshow somehow legitimising the risk or more likely, helping to fund it. What many on here seem to forget is that in assessing risk, the benefits gained from taking the risk need to be considered. Airshows provide entertainment. The activities that Nut uses as a comparison provide far, far more.

So you are in effect saying that those that died at Shoreham due to it being an "entertainment" are not relevant in the real wide world where those that got mowed down by a bin Lorry are, because the bin Lorry was carrying out "tangible benefits" which of course are allowed to continue because there is a financial and commercial factors at work.

You also point out it was all the fault of someone with a lust for flying that is the primary cause, how then can you then explain the continuing ban and financial implications on the owners of Hunter aircraft, whose assets are now virtually worthless, even though that wasn't the primary cause of the accident and may have complied with all the legislation and requirements in place. Dustbin lorries were not removed from instant service across the UK until the inquiry was concluded, why was the Hunter?


Leisure activities and entertainment are a vital part of life by the way, but when one persons entertainment exposes others to risk, then that person has to think very carefully about the consequences if things go wrong, because individuals can and should be held to account.

And so should everyone else, sadly in some cases it still hasn't happened, Bhopal is a classic case.

[salad-dodger]

Nutloose. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, that much is clear by your posts and your replies. There is little point in writing a lengthy reply to your post, because to be honest, this whole discussion is beyond you. You have completely misunderstood what I wrote and then also misrepresented it.

Fortunately, most other posters on this forum have the wit that you lack to understand the concepts involved here.

So, my apologies for the bluntness, but stick to what you know about fella - kicking chocks!

S-D

[NutLoose]

Really and your experience is?


Mine is an EASA and CAA licensed engineer for 25 plus, Chief Engineer, Camo and previously a Nominated Engineer for the last 15 - 20 years + and prior to that ex RAF Engineer with a total of 40 plus years, covering fighters, both Civilian and military jet, and piston engine ex military, along with Helicopter and airliner, business and piston experience, along with several hundred types on my licences.

I await with baited breath your qualifications.

[salad-dodger]

So you're a tyrekicker then. Nice one.

S-D

[NutLoose]

Are you aware what a Camo is actually responsible for and does?

Why did you edit your post twice, the first to remove your experience of 20 years as a safety engineer on aircraft, ATM machines and some rail work plus a masters? Something you should be proud off, And then to remove your begrudging exceptance of the facts to have another pop at me.

Curious behaviour.


As I said, if the pilot is to blame, why is the Hunter still grounded, that for me is a major question, after all prior to the incident they would have been maintained in accordance with a maintenance and servicing schedule approved by the CAA, if they are now grounded because of failings within that schedule, then surely part of the problem must be the CAA in itself, who authorised and approved it. If it had been ignored then yes, but are they really trying to say every operator simply ignored their own approvals, which I highly doubt.


.

[glad rag]

I watched a display today, normally, like everyone else, I'm close to the scene of the crime but today I was 5 miles away.
First time I've watched a display from a distance in a long, long time, and it was eye opening, not for the lack of vis of the low level action but the singular and deeply striking moment (for me) was watching the pilot pulling the nose down through the vertical and the vv and alpha going way past the direction the cab was actually going at that instant.
Awesome.
JATK sd.

[Cows getting bigger]

It's CAMO, not Camo. Just saying........ :hmm:

UK.MG.0170

[salad-dodger]

Nutloose, you are right, I took my post down as to be honest, I couldn't be arsed to continue with it. But seeing as you have regurgitated some of it, I had better correct you.

Over 30 years in aviation, including aircraft engineering, support and operations, safety and airworthiness. Most of the aircraft stuff is military, but some civil. ATM*, including Airports, Air Traffic (radars/displays/comms/NavAids, AGL etc) in the terminal and enroute environments, working with both airport operators and equipment suppliers large and small. A little rail work for a bit of diversification and a few other other niche areas.

Oh yes, and a Bachelors in Engineering and a Masters in Safety.

Yes, I know what a CAMO is, I work with them all the time, and chief engineers and many other flavours of engineers, aircrew, controllers, and support staff.

*ATM - Air Traffic Management. Sorry, but I used it thinking someone with such experience in aviation would understand that I was not referring to cash machines :ugh:

The subject we are discussing, safety and risk assessment, I do it for a living. Have done for over 20 years. I can point you in the direction of some decent training if you like. A key part of the role is knowing one's limitations. When I want to know exactly how a system operates, I ask an expert in that system, sometimes the OEM. When I want to know how an aircraft is operated, I ask the crew, or sometimes a TP. When I want to know how a controller reacts to situations, I ask controllers. I stick to the safety engineering aspects of all that.

Not claiming to have all the answers by the way, but I do have very many questions.

S-D

[MSOCS]

Just to clarify a small misunderstandng in your display story Glad Rag:

The "vv" IS where the cab is going. That's why pilots use it as a reference. In very high AoA manoeuvres the VV sits at the bottom of the HUD flashing to inform the pilot that the real vector is out of the field of view and cannot be used. So, it's the LFD (and chord line) above the vv (or flight path) in the manoeuvre you describe.

Not that it really matters, as I don't believe the Hunter has that sort of set up.

[NutLoose]

*ATM - Air Traffic Management. Sorry, but I used it thinking someone with such experience in aviation would understand that I was not referring to cash machines :ugh:

One was being humorous, obviously it went right over your head.

[salad-dodger]

One was being humorous, obviously it went right over your head.
It did. I just thought you were being stupid.

S-D

[bvcu]

Nutlike if you read the interim report from AAIB you'll realise why the Hunter is still grounded. The two mk58's flying on the military register are because they can access ejection seat cartridges which civil registered can't at the moment. The T7/8's probably won't fly again in the UK because of the engine inspection requirement. As the operator recently told me , why do an expensive inspection if you can't carry out repairs , there are no approved facilities for the Avon 122 , but there are for the 200 series so the the MK58's and F6/9's are sustainable.

[neila83]

Dustbin lorries were not removed from instant service across the UK until the inquiry was concluded, why was the Hunter?

Is this actually serious? Perhaps engage your brain a minute and think about this, because your whole argument is losing validity when you post such obvious nonsense.

It's now been explained to you why the Hunter is not in service so perhaps you can be a bit more level headed. The enquiry hasn't been concluded and your attitude seems to be 'I don't care what happened, I like planes, give me what I want, waaaahh'.

You say because these things happen very rarely, we should just accept it and move on. Which seems slightly bizarre, aviation didn't get as safe as it is with an attitude like that. It is because of this robust reaction to accidents that incidents are as rare as they are, long may that continue. Even incidents that don't kill people are investigated thoroughly, sometimes planes grounded, and lessons learned implemented.

If very bad decisions were made that day, it is very important that they are learned from. If the risk can be reduced it should be, I'm not sure why you're against that. You made a bizarre point about financial implications, it's not a conspiracy you know. Some things are vital to society functioning, some things are not. Society will make the judgement in the end, not you or some conspiracy of bankers out to spoil your fun, and I think society decided air displays are a long way down the list of things it's willing to accept the risk of being killed for.

[NutLoose]

That is not what I was inferring, what I was trying to get across is when it is a major item that effects us all and is a necessity, there is often not the same reaction. Far from it, my job entails ensuring safety is paramount, sadly as I mentioned earlier, in some respect, there is a relaxation of the rules, which personally i think is wrong. if you want an example of safety verses economics, read

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Publications/Legal_Issues/law_and_profits_in_aviation.html

Thanks BVCU, first sensible reply I have had.

[neila83]

That is not what I was inferring, what I was trying to get across is when it is a major item that effects us all and is a necessity, there is often not the same reaction.

Erm, obviously? :confused:

Consider the downside to removing all the garbage trucks from the roads? Public health is the most obvious. Now compare with the downside of cancelling an airshow/restricting it. The latter, we can all get on with our lives without issue, the former would cause some fairly serious issues for the basic functioning of society. And probably a number of deaths from health impacts.

It's basic cost benefit analysis.

[NutLoose]

Which is exactly what I posted, the Hunter was immediately grounded because no one knew if the jet was the cause, no one knew either if the lorry was at fault either, but it wasn't.

[Pontius Navigator]

NL, fact or assumption? Maybe all their trucks were recalled and checked. Obviously nothing found. Maybe they contacted the manufacturer.

[dastocks]

AIUI the basic cause of the Glasgow bin lorry incident was established very early to be driver incapacitation. This was confirmed by a number of witnesses both within and outside the cab of the lorry. The lorry itself was also the subject of an engineering inspection. ITYF a number of public sector HGV/PSV operators have reviewed their procedures in terms of checking driver licenses and medicals.

[glad rag]

Just to clarify a small misunderstandng in your display story Glad Rag:

The "vv" IS where the cab is going. That's why pilots use it as a reference. In very high AoA manoeuvres the VV sits at the bottom of the HUD flashing to inform the pilot that the real vector is out of the field of view and cannot be used. So, it's the LFD (and chord line) above the vv (or flight path) in the manoeuvre you describe.


Go forth and partronise elsewhere.

[MSOCS]

You misunderstand gr. I wasn't patronising or attempting to patronise you. Just helping by clearing up a small error in your abysmal nomenclature.

...but if you're too arrogant or ignorant to accept such help, then fine. I suggest you go and read AP3456.

[Tashengurt]

I took my lads to Sunderland airshow today.
The Norwegian Vampires were so far out to sea it was fairly pointless having them there.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Which is exactly what I posted, the Hunter was immediately grounded because no one knew if the jet was the cause, no one knew either if the lorry was at fault either, but it wasn't.


Not really. What you wrote was a request for someone to explain:


the continuing ban and financial implications on the owners of Hunter aircraft, whose assets are now virtually worthless, even though that wasn't the primary cause of the accident and may have complied with all the legislation and requirements in place. Dustbin lorries were not removed from instant service across the UK until the inquiry was concluded, why was the Hunter?


...thereby suggesting that the different response to vintage jet crash and bin lorry crash is unfair, and that the financial loss to Hunter owners provides an argument to keep the Hunters flying until an aircraft fault is proven to have caused the crash. This is obviously daft.

[Chronus]

All this verbiage about a bin lorry is just a load of garbage. It has no basis of comparison in this instance, except perhaps the prospect of vintage aircraft being binned from future air shows.

[salad-dodger]

Come on Nutloose, how many people do you need to tell you that your comparison was fatuous? Bone headed was my choice of words and your subsequent posts have only reinforced that view.

You then said:
Far from it, my job entails ensuring safety is paramount...
Which worries me, as you clearly do not have a clue what it means. Please let us know what operator you work for, as I for one would like to keep well away from anything you have safety responsibility for.

S-D

[BEagle]

Will you two please get a room....!!

:rolleyes:

[MSOCS]

Oh dear gr, I seem to have touched a nerve old timer.

[Wander00]

Someone take their handbags away!

[beardy]

What does vv stand for? I assumed velocity vector, but velocity is a vector, so I must be wrong again.

[PDR1]

The term "velocity vector" (vv) refers to a symbol on a display, usually a head-up display, that indicates where the aeroplane is going as opposed to where it's pointing. You can consider it to be the end of an arrow which is aligned with the velocity of the airplane where that velocity hits whatever is in front of it.

If the vv is "painted" on the ground it doesn't matter that your nose is 25 degrees above the horizon - you're going to hit the ground unless you add some energy from somewhere(!). Equally if the VV is holding stable just beyond the piano keys, and t horizontal and vertical velocities are at the preferred values, then you're approach is probably good and you just need to remember to flare [or not, depending on type - consult you owners' handbook].

PDR

[beardy]

Thanks, I understand that now, but why the tautology? Velocity is a vector in and of itself (speed in a direction.) Airbus call what you describe the flight path vector (FPV) speed is shown elsewhere.

[Mandator]

Not seen this article linked on this thread:

Report on Shoreham Airshow disaster delayed for two months (From The Argus) (http://m.theargus.co.uk/news/14630018.Report_on_Shoreham_Airshow_disaster_delayed_for_two _months/)

[PDR1]

Velocity is a vector in and of itself.

It's a usage thing. velocity is certainly a vector quantity, but when people use the term "velocity" they commonly mean "speed" anyway.

Velocity (being as you say a vector) has two elements - a magnitude and a direction. When people use the expression "velocity vector" the parameter they're usually talking about is just the "direction" element and the magnitude is not of interest. Whoever the first person was who coined the phrase to name a symbol on a display decided that "Velocity Vector" was a good name for the parameter "the direction the speed is travelling in". Aviation, like so many other fields, has terms evolved through usage which no longer make literal sense.

Life's like that. In fact ironically the term "tautology" itself is another example, but that's for another thread.

PDR

[Courtney Mil]

Today in an email from the AAIB.

Acting Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, David Miller, said:

“Today marks the first anniversary of the Shoreham air display accident. Our thoughts are with all those affected by this tragedy.

We have published three special bulletins which have included safety recommendations to prevent future similar accidents. Our final report will integrate and expand on those previous bulletins, which dealt with systemic issues, and cover the technical aspects of the accident itself.

The final report is expected to be published later this year.”

Since the accident, the AAIB has published three special bulletins.

Special Bulletin S3/2015, published 4 September 2015.

Special Bulletin S4/2015, published 21 December 2015.

Special Bulletin S1/2016, published 10 March 2016.

[NutLoose]

Victory Show


I do not want to say this but if you pay to go to air shows, this is now one you need to miss, content was good, BUT the new display line is nowhere near the show, so you end up watching it in the distance, and I am talking using a 500MM lens with a 1.4 convertor on and the only way I could get anywhere near a full screen shot was to do a 100% zoom on the camera.
I and a lot of people left early because it was totally pointless staying, after the ground battle had finished, the only chance you had of getting a decent shot or indeed seeing the aircraft flying was during take off or landing, and I wasn't the only person being vocal in that they would never attend again in the current format, that in itself is sad as the profit's go to charity.
I know Shoreham happened and the CAA got anal and had to react, BUT the main crux of the matter of Shoreham was those killed were not involved in the show which by purchasing a ticket you accept the risks, I understand that and see what they are trying to fix, but the sheer fact that they have moved the display line actually increases that risk as it no longer falls within the boundary of the display site the public pay for,
As with everything you get freeloaders, and I watched the show supervisors clear them for them to reappear again the minute the vehicle's left. these were none paying members of the public which are then UNDER the display line, so those that except the risk by purchasing entry are now in effect not being able to enjoy a show at a realistic display format, whilst those that haven't accepted that risk by purchasing a ticket have a full show, call me old fashioned, but isn't that doing exactly what the lessons of Shoreham were supposed to prevent, injury to those outside the show?????
Leaving early I saw more, and was closer to the Spitfire display driving through the uncontrolled environment of the village, than I was in the controlled and paid for show ground.
And in that, there is something fundamentally wrong in this new ethos!

[Pontius Navigator]

Nutty, that was what we observed with the Battle Prom display at Burleigh. In contrast, BBMF, at our 40s weekend could fly low down our High street. Also watched the Reds at an At Home day, only open fields with the obligatory farm house beyond the display line but crowd line along the apron with display line on the runway.

[NutLoose]

The other thing that struck me was that any airshow site has to have fire and ambulance in attendance to cover any incident on site, now that they could be miles from the aircraft incident they have the additional problems of trying to battle through show traffic to reach it.


And with the display shifted around it was now with the sun behind it, which made photography more or less pointless and I winced when I saw people with zooms tracking aircraft past the sun, not only were they doing the sensor no good, they were equally doing the same to their eyes.

[Wander00]

Interestingly the road from the A1 roundabout to Old Warden airfield was closed during yesterday's show, and all the fields around had notices saying "no entry - emergency landing area"

[Nige321]

The High Court has ruled in the Shoreham evidence.

Verdict here... (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shoreham-high-court-judgement)

[NutLoose]

So basically they can have the footage but the pilots statements etc they can't. I do wonder who they will use to make sense of the footage as after all the AAIB are the ones really qualified to do that.

[Courtney Mil]

Today (28 September), the High Court handed down its judgment in the case between the Chief Constable of Sussex Police and the Secretary of State for Transport.

Sussex Police applied to the High Court for the disclosure of records that are given a protected status in law. The Secretary of State did not resist the application, since he considers it to be a matter for the Court to decide whether disclosure should be made in cases such as these.

Sussex Police applied for the disclosure of:

Statements made by the pilot to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch in response to discussions or interviews;
Film footage of the flight which was made by cameras which had been installed on the aeroplane in question on a voluntary basis; and
Material which has been produced by various other people subsequently, such as experiments conducted and tests done on various aspects of the accident.
The judgment refused the application for disclosure in this case except in relation to the film footage from within the aircraft. The order to disclose materials is subject to a number of conditions.

A spokesperson for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch said: “The AAIB is not able to release protected air accident investigation records of its own accord. Only the High Court can allow for their release. We note today’s judgment and will now release the film footage to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police.”

[Davef68]

Sensible decision as it preserves the right of protection against self-incimination and protects the integrity of the 'freedom to speak freely' within the Accident Investigation

[Satellite_Driver]

Here's the full judgment:

Chief Constable of Sussex Police v (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) BALPA [2016] EWHC 2280 (QB) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2280.html)

The application for disclosure was evidently treated seriously as it was dealt with by two senior judges, one of whom was the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. (The judgment itself is by the other, Mr Justice Singh, but having the LCJ sign off on it means that this will be taken as strong guidance on how to handle such requests.) BALPA appears to have intervened to make representations on behalf of its members.

Paras 1 to 8 set out the background. Of note is para 8 in which the court records that the AAIB confirmed at the hearing in July that the report was complete and would be likely to be released in the Autumn.

Paras 9 to 26 recite the relevant legislation and probably aren't of much interest to non-lawyers.

Paras 27 to 34 discuss the very limited previous history of similar applications - one each in Scotland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This appears to have been the first such application in the courts of England and Wales.

Paras 35 to 39 discuss the procedure. As a lawyer it is ironically amusing to see the police on the other side of a 'public interest immunity' disclosure argument for once!

Para 40 explains the types of disclosure sought: statements from Mr Hill, cockpit video and results of investigatory tests.

Paras 41 to 45 explain why the Court is not ordering disclosure of Mr Hill's statements. There are two reasons: the AAIB can compel a witness to answer, so there is no 'no comment', and there was no evidence that Mr Hill was cautioned before the AAIB interview. Also, as Singh J points out, the police are free to interview Mr Hill themselves and have done so.

Paras 46 to 50 explain why the Court is ordering disclosure of the cockpit video to the police. The reason given is that where, as here, it seems that the videos were being made for commercial rather than safety monitoring purposes the Court doubts that its order will deter pilots from making such recordings.

Paras 51 to 54 explain why the court is not ordering disclosure of expert investigations. The reason given is that such reports will be published as annexes to the AAIB report in due course and the police are in any event free to commission their own analyses.

Paras 55 and 56 summarise the outcome. Note that the disclosed videos are ordered to be made available only to the Sussex Police, the CPS if necessary, and Mr Hill and his lawyers (whom I assume have probably got copies already, but this is always good practice.)

[Arfur Dent]

As another display Season bites the dust, have the CAA come to any final conclusions? :confused:

[Brian W May]

Be honest, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't by competing agencies with diametrically opposite agendas.

Sad days . . .

[ORAC]

Shoreham disaster: Regulator throws out suggested safety measures (From The Argus) (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14910955.Shoreham_disaster__Regulator_throws_out_suggested_s afety_measures/)

THE families of the victims of the Shoreham Airshow disaster will fight to see safety measures introduced after the regulator rejected almost half the recommendations made. A lawyer representing relatives of the 11 men who died on August 22, 2015, said they will continue to campaign to see safety rules introduced to prevent another tragedy.

The news comes as The Argus can exclusively reveal the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), rejected nine out of 21 safety recommendations proposed by the Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) in the wake of the crash.........

An AAIB report said the CAA had not adequately addressed 10 of its safety recommendations having rejected nine and is yet to complete another.

The regulator rejected advice on the distance between crowds and flying displays, requests to force organisers to demand a break-down of manoeuvres before a pilot takes to the sky, stricter risk assessment rules and changes to the way flying permits are issued. The CAA argued some rules already in place adequately addressed the concerns and in other cases said the responsibility lied with airshow organisers instead.

Five recommendations were adequately addressed and the regulator went some way to act on four more but “further action” was required. One of the recommendations was superceded by others so was no longer necessary, the AAIB said.

The body can only recommend the changes and does not have the power to force them to be introduced........

A CAA spokesman said it was “inappropriate” to comment in more detail while an investigation was ongoing but said it was common for the status of recommendations to change before a final report is published. He added: “We continue to work with the AAIB.”........

[Cows getting bigger]

Here we go. :(

[NutLoose]

CAA have published updates

AIRSHOW NEWS: Civil Aviation Authority publishes updates to FACTOR F1/2016 & FACTOR F4/2016 ?Accident to HAWKER HUNTER T7, G-BXFI, near Shoreham Airport, West Sussex, on 22 August 2015 (Issue 2)? : British Air Display Association (http://www.bada-uk.com/2017/01/airshow-news-civil-aviation-authority-publishes-updated-to-factor-f12016-factor-f42016-accident-to-hawker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi-near-shoreham-airport-west-sussex-on-22-august-2015-issue-2/)

[Arfur Dent]

Anybody been contacted by the local Police to explain what they meant in a PPrune post/opinion expressed regarding this accident?
I have and I don't mind helping but interesting that the Police are still "investigating".

[Wingswinger]

I have too. I have yet to respond.

[NutLoose]

Seriously?...

[BEagle]

I received a PM from 'PPRune Towers' which relayed a 'need' from a DC of Sussex Police to speak about comments I made on PPRuNe concerning aspects of Hunter flying which I made shortly after Andy Hill's accident at Shoreham.

I have yet to decide whether or not to reply.

However, if PPRuNe posters are being approached in this manner 18 months after posting their comments, this might well spell the death knell of the forum.

Particularly when, as was reported last year:
A Sussex Police spokesman said: “Detectives investigating the circumstances of the crash of a Hunter fighter jet at Shoreham in August 2015, which killed 11 people, have confirmed that a 52-year-old man was notified in December that he is being investigated for possible endangerment pursuant to Article 138 Air Navigation Order 2009 and also manslaughter by gross negligence.”

Would any pilot really wish to offer information which might support such a case against a fellow aviator? Somehow I doubt it and I consider that 'PPRuNe Towers' should have made this abundantly clear to Sussex Police. I haven't flown a Hunter for 40 years and if reminiscences posted on a Rumour Network are now being examined in such a manner, it's highly probable that there won't be many such posts in future....

So why didn't you make that point, eh Rob?

[NutLoose]

Totally agree. It also sounds like those they have approached officially have refused to cooperate so they are reduced to trawling the web.... What a way to attempt to build a case.
As I have always said the AAIB are the ones that should be investigating air crashes and not a bunch of plods that have no specialised skills in the field, that alone rests with the AAIB.


..

[PPRuNe Towers]

She was set straight on all counts, told to wind her neck in and had to produce the data protection paperwork. As I made clear it was entirely up to you if you choose to respond and it was done by PM to keep it all in-house if you decide not to.

Last time was Operation Yewtree where one soul being pursued was released from enquires via the content on the Mil forum proving him right. Open knowledge here.

Rob

[NutLoose]

It would make sense / might be an idea for people to announce in the threads such as this that the plods have contacted them, thus allowing / warning other members it is happening.

But then again it is up to them. It just came as a surprise so far along from the incident.

[Arfur Dent]

My comments related to the amount of practice historic jet display pilots (don't) get. It was an observation which I still believe in but will not be contacting the Sussex Police because I don't wish to be instrumental in prosecuting a fellow aviator.
I thought Rob's advice to me about it being my decision, to respond or not, was helpful - thanks for that.
Be careful what you write..........

[BEagle]

Having thought long and hard about the matter, I have decided not to respond - for the very reasons Arfur makes.

My comments concerned the totally normal use of 23° flap when manoeuvring the Hunter and were confirmed by others with far more experience on the type.

Hydrobooster jackstall only occurs above M0.9 with flap extended; that would equate to around 590KIAS at low level and Andy's aircraft was flying at nowhere near such a speed.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Wingswinger]

I have come to the same conclusion.

My comments, from a distance of 33 years from a Hunter cockpit, were based on what appeared to happen in the video, the use of flap and the possibility of it reducing elevator authority at higher speeds. My memory was slightly defective as others pointed out. I also wrote about G-LOC and medical fitness.

There are others out there with much more recent experience on Hunters, including former Hunter display pilots. I'll leave it to the AAIB.

[Lima Juliet]

Would any pilot really wish to offer information which might support such a case against a fellow aviator?

Yes, in the right circumstances. I have a very good mate who lost one of his family in the accident. If I knew something that was incriminating then not only would I have a legal duty to report it, but also a moral one as well. Sorry, but no-one is above the law and that is that.

Finally, I suspect they may also be looking at the companies and trusts that operate these aircraft plus also those that look after airshows - it certainly looks like there have been failings within the organisation. Might they be looking at corporate manslaughter with respect to those that do the training, supervision, engineering and direct operation for these aircraft (I'm thinking the Hunter and Gnat operators plus the airshow organisers)? I understand there is no custodial sentence for corporate manslaughter but a hefty fine and compensation. Thoughts?

LJ

[alfred_the_great]

Would any pilot really wish to offer information which might support such a case against a fellow aviator? Somehow I doubt it...



Re:your fellow aviator - why not? If he did wrong, he needs to be brought to court and his actions assessed, and if found wrong, punished.

Just because he's an aviator doesn't mean he gets to be involved in a fatal accident and not have every action scrutinised.

[Wetstart Dryrun]

Thoughts?

...this is an internet thread of armchair experts speculating without access to all available facts, without experience of the requisite skills or the characteristics of the specific aircraft.

The thread is full of crap. (sorry, I stared at the screen for ages to get the precise wording). Nobody posting here actually 'knows' any pertinent fact -it is just guesswork, mostly bad.


The thought that Sussex Police ( did they shoot an unarmed naked man in Brighton?) are trawling here for expert testimony fills me with alarm for the future of justice in this case.

I think the Jjury seems to have reached a verdict...and the report is not yet issued.

I am sorry someone known to you had a relative who died in this event. i hope the final report allows closure.

[wiggy]

Thoughts?

...this is an internet thread of armchair experts speculating without access to all available facts, without experience of the requisite skills or the characteristics of the specific aircraft.

The thread is full of crap. (sorry, I stared at the screen for ages to get the precise wording). Nobody posting here actually 'knows' any pertinent fact -it is just guesswork, mostly bad.

The thought that Sussex Police ........are trawling here for expert testimony fills me with alarm for the future of justice in this case.


And not just this case. I know we are in the "post expert" era but this is rediculous.

Hypothetically let's say someone has a accident driving an old car such a Ford Capri......would one expect the police to trawl a hypothetical "former Ford Capri owners forum," asking "what do you think caused the accident" and then using those regarded as giving the most suitable answer as some form of expert witness.

(Nothing against Capri's BTW, used to have one.)

[Basil]

...this is an internet thread of armchair experts speculating without access to all available facts, without experience of the requisite skills or the characteristics of the specific aircraft.
Not entirely. It would appear that some have flown the type, albeit a long time ago and have made some useful comment, usually with the caveat of failing memory.
I recollect flying a Bucker Jungmann about once a month and thinking 'This ain't really enough.' Now, say, an Avions Robin, not a problem.
We don't have very current Hunter people any more. (Been told I could be wrong there)
It's over ten years since I've touched the controls and I'd be very reluctant to pass serious comment (Not to be confused with pub talk in which I'm 200% better than I ever really was ;))

[Tashengurt]

I'd be surprised if the Police were trawling Internet forums looking for snippets of info.
More likely someone connected to the incident has mentioned comments made on this thread as being potentially relevant at which point those investigating would be duty bound to at least assess that relevance.

[Pontius Navigator]

Form? The police are well on to investigating crimes decades back when, by definition, they are trawling fading memories. Then we have the barrister with his question, answer Yes or No.

I am 100% certain that I have full, complete and accurate memory of events during training 50 years ago.

I am also 100% certain that I am wrong. There you go Basil, my 200% too.

[Dr Jekyll]

Hypothetically let's say someone has a accident driving an old car such a Ford Capri......would one expect the police to trawl a hypothetical "former Ford Capri owners forum," asking "what do you think caused the accident" and then using those regarded as giving the most suitable answer as some form of expert witness.


Not as such. But there was a case when a driver on some kind of club run was involved in a serious accident and the police trawled the drivers previous contributions to the club's internet forum for statements that could be read out in court to portray him as a hooligan.

[Basil]

the police trawled the drivers previous contributions to the club's internet forum for statements that could be read out in court to portray him as a hooligan.
Which is a good reason for being careful what you post online.
(Note to self: Heed foregoing advice!) ;)

[Arfur Dent]

The Sussex Police don't really need to ask me whether an Airline pilot who used to be a Fighter pilot should be displaying a Hunter with virtually no sensible currency on that type. It's like the Base Commander of a Typhoon station suddenly deciding that he will be the Display Pilot as well as running the base. It simply would never happen.
Who authorises these people and gives them a Permission to Display Authority?
They are culpable too.

[ORAC]

Shoreham families 'to receive £10m compensation' for loved ones who died in jet crash fireball - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shoreham-families-to-receive-10m-9759389)

[Pontius Navigator]

Shoreham families 'to receive £10m compensation' for loved ones who died in jet crash fireball - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shoreham-families-to-receive-10m-9759389)
An extract states:

Essex tycoon Graham Peacock owns Canfield. A spokesman said: “An admission of liability was made. We cannot comment further given investigations are ongoing . . .

[Lima Juliet]

I womder if the Regulator (ie. CAA) will be sued? After all their apparent lacklustre procedures for civilian display requirements have already been found wanting and have undergone significant review. :confused:

[Wetstart Dryrun]

Mr Dent, While I don't necessarily not disagree with your sentiments about currency, I could not comment about a specific display without either watching it or reading the list of intended manouevres.

A show of fast/slow, clean dirty fly-bys linked with practised wingovers would give the punters a chance to see, hear, photograph and generally marvel at a pretty aeroplane in flightwith minimal need for rehearsal. Even a station master could do it.

Clearly the perils of a birdstrike, engine failure, or even an FCU or linkage failure would give a high probability of a column of greasy smoke, especially if the runway is a bit short.

[Just This Once...]

I womder if the Regulator (ie. CAA) will be sued? After all their apparent lacklustre procedures for civilian display requirements have already been found wanting and have undergone significant review. :confused:

I have wondered the same. The CAA had set incredibly low standards that were way below comparable military requirements and yet appear to have no demonstrable audit chain to underpin such low recency/currency requirements for high-performance swept-wing jets. This would struggle to meet the Clapham Omnibus test, let alone a reasoned expert witness.

That they allowed someone to achieve a display qualification on a straight-wing basic trainer such as the JP as a means to display a Hunter is professional madness - yet this is what the CAA did, whilst billing people for the privilege.

There has been a lot of focus on Mr Hill and the company (rightly so of course) but it does not take long to tug on the threads of this incident to find a supine, target-driven and business-focused CAA at the other end. Somehow the CAA has lost 'aviation' as one of its core competencies.

[MACH2NUMBER]

Arfur,
At least a Typhoon Base Commander would be very properly current on type to stringent RAF regulations.

[Arfur Dent]

Mach - Point well made. What I meant was that he STILL wouldn't be anywhere close to being authorised do a full public display. For other posters, I mean a full, aerobatic sequence - not a high speed/low speed series of flypasts.

[MACH2NUMBER]

Arfur,
Well said. I know absolutely nothing about this particular very sad incident, except what I have read here. Just another comment on the military side of display flying. Display pilots are current on type, selected, trained, supervised and monitored throughout their, normally one year, display season. It is almost a full-time job. That is not to say the mil system is completely infallible, there have been some notable incidents in the past, but it seems pretty tight just now.

[Exnomad]

Very easy to lose height in a loop, this pilot had lots of hours, but how much time does the average service pilot spend on aerobatics, generally working for a living

[MACH2NUMBER]

Exnomad,
Depends very much on type. A Typhoon pilot will be very much using high G aerobatic type manoeuvres throughout the combat phase of any normal training profile. A transport pilot would not be doing any of this.

[Legalapproach]

I womder if the Regulator (ie. CAA) will be sued? After all their apparent lacklustre procedures for civilian display requirements have already been found wanting and have undergone significant review.

Probably not as there would be no need. Under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act s76(2) the owner of the aircraft is liable without proof of negligence for any damage caused to persons or property on the ground as a result of an aircraft in flight. As full damages are recoverable from the owner why would anyone want to sue the CAA?

[LOMCEVAK]

A few points:

As Mach has said, the UK military has had quite a few incidents and accidents at displays and during display practises over the years so their system is not infallible. I believe that one weak link in military displaying is that often the supervision duties are allocated according to rank, and the supervisor may have no display experience whatsoever (that certainly was the case for my first military display season); at least all CAA approved DA Evaluators are experienced display pilots with relevant experience in category. And I believe that the fact that, except for teams such as RAFAT or flights such as BBMF and RNHF, UK military display pilots only have 1 or 2 seasons during which they display is a driver for some of the recency requirements. Many civilian display pilots have displayed every season for several decades and do not need as much practise or recency.

That they allowed someone to achieve a display qualification on a straight-wing basic trainer such as the JP as a means to display a Hunter is professional madness - yet this is what the CAA did, whilst billing people for the privilege..

That is not quite true. An initial issue DA for the Hunter has always required an evaluation on the Hunter, and a DA would then only be issued for that type following a satisfactory demonstration of ability to an appropriately certified DA Evaluator in accordance with the requirements of CAP403. However, at the time of the Shoreham accident a pilot could renew his DA in any category/on any type for which he held a DA and that would renew the DA for all categories held. Therefore, a renewal on a Jet Provost would renew a DA for the Hunter if the pilot held a valid DA for both types. CAP403 has been amended since the Shoreham accident and the rules for DA renewals have changed.

Some of the pilots who display historic jet aircraft do also fly military registered fast jet aircraft as a 'day job' and, therefore, what may appear to be low overall fast jet recency may not be the case. However, I do accept that these are a minority of display pilots.

[MACH2NUMBER]

LOMCEVAK,
I think you have misquoted me slightly on the infallibilty or otherwise of the military system.
IMHO, good currency on type is very important to safety, day-to-day, and in display. I do not believe that a few displays across 10 years are necessarily as safe as many displays in a single season. I quote "do not need as much practice or recency." The type of display seems key to much of this, high energy manoeuvres, aeros etc are very much removed from benign flypasts and simple performance demonstrations. Its a very tricky area, and I for one don't have the answers.

[Wetstart Dryrun]

Exnomad,

The Hunter has a pretty good wing and a reasonable motor. At sea level, from 380kts, it would be fairly easy to gain height - 4G up, 5G down; topping out +4,500ft ish above base with a minimum speed of maybe 140kts.

It would do this all day, until the fuel ran out.

The reported performance point of apex at 100kts and 2900ft (maybe approx page 3 of this thread) suggests to me that the parking brake was on

[LOMCEVAK]

MACH2NUMBER,

I wasn't disagreeing with you but trying to add to your points. I agree that, obviously, too little practise and recency is unacceptable. However, for a pilot with many years of display experience and significant display experience on type then the military display currency requirements are greater than necessary and can be significantly less without incurring an increase in the level of risk or probability of an accident.

Please note that I am discussing a generic philosophy here and am making no reference to the circumstances of the Shoreham accident.

[Just This Once...]

I don't think anyone would argue with that LOMCEVAK but a realistic minimum has to be set and achieved. I've yet to meet an aviator who thought the extant rules were appropriate and yet the airshow and DA circuit carried on experimenting with 'how low can you go' when it came to currency and recency.

[MACH2NUMBER]

LOM,
I know you were not disagreeing. I understand your points - and neither am I referring to Shoreham in any way.

[Pittsextra]

Doesn't the last page just show how mixed up this is? People want to exchange a view but the nub of that gets washed away in a bunch of qualification and caveat - it's utter nonsense.

Currency / recency - what is going to be interesting is how any intelligence is given to the thinking behind any new regime which wasn't apparent before. Then the how and why that might have prevented this accident... Then square that with why that regime wasn't in place before or when risks suddenly became apparent. Then why that conversation needs 18 months to figure/communicate.

Just this once seems to have called it:-


I have wondered the same. The CAA had set incredibly low standards that were way below comparable military requirements and yet appear to have no demonstrable audit chain to underpin such low recency/currency requirements for high-performance swept-wing jets. This would struggle to meet the Clapham Omnibus test, let alone a reasoned expert witness.

That they allowed someone to achieve a display qualification on a straight-wing basic trainer such as the JP as a means to display a Hunter is professional madness - yet this is what the CAA did, whilst billing people for the privilege.

There has been a lot of focus on Mr Hill and the company (rightly so of course) but it does not take long to tug on the threads of this incident to find a supine, target-driven and business-focused CAA at the other end. Somehow the CAA has lost 'aviation' as one of its core competencies.

[Heathrow Harry]

Bit much to blame the CAA when almost all the initial comment on this thread was "they're interfering in our long established rights to conduct air displays as our fathers did before us".

If they had acted before Shoreham my guess is that everyone would have pointed out how few privately owned display planes had ever killed anyone..............

Sure the CAA could/should have acted differently - but the greater avaition community could/should also have thought this through

As ever hindsight is a wonderful thing

[LOMCEVAK]

".. and yet the airshow and DA circuit carried on experimenting with 'how low can you go' when it came to currency and recency."
I think that this is trying to tar all display pilots with the same brush. Whilst I agree that this may be applicable to some display pilots, others are very professional in ensuring that they have adequate practise in order to display safely and well.

One other aspect to consider is that the current culture is to look for a regulation to address every aspect of flying and to mitigate every risk. The requirement and expectation for pilots to exercise judgement and to be trusted to do so no longer seems to have the same gravitas that it once did; obeying regulations seems to be all that is expected.

[Just This Once...]

My aim was not to tar all display pilots with the same brush - far from it. But the collective 'we' (ie pilots/owners/operators/DAs/CAA/MAA et al) didn't catch/stop/mitigate against the extremes and Mr Hill was far from unique when it came to his type currency.

[Arfur Dent]

It just makes me wonder thinking back to my days on the Hunter as a student at RAF Chivenor. The solo display pilot did 3 trips a day - which were roughly 60 minutes each - and then on at least 3 days a week after work, would fly his low level display sequence down to about 500' (ish).
That is what I call a "current" display pilot.

[MPN11]

I wonder, idly, how the current Defence Budget copes with such a level of activity these days. Do we still allocate loads of hours/stress/fuel to do that?

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN, yes. Contingent has just published the Typhoon work up programme. There are 3 display slots per day of which one or two will be used. I can't remember if it is 3 or 5 days per week, but it will be a lot considering it is February with 2 months or so to go and we are talking someone current on type.

[Arfur Dent]

So now we have the crux of this problem which is much wider than the Shoreham accident.

Why, for years, have the CAA allowed civilians to fly displays in ex-military fast jets when they are barely current on type - let alone current at carrying out a low level aerobatic display?

Surely, these jets should be flown by professionals in a BBMF-type 'Squadron' properly funded so that currency, engineering etc are not a problem.

[GeeRam]

Surely, these jets should be flown by professionals in a BBMF-type 'Squadron' properly funded so that currency, engineering etc are not a problem.

They have in the past, CFS Vintage Pair springs to mind, plus of course Vulcan Display Flight, and the Seahawk operated sporadically by the RNHF until its last and maybe final grounding.

Sadly, the Vintage Pair incidents back in the day prove even this isn't foolproof.

MOD aren't going to fund vintage jets - period.

And its all possibly a moot point post-Shoreham. I doubt we'll be seeing too many civvie owned/operated vintage jets flying again (and the Hunter grounding might never be lifted by CAA?) as I think the insurance premiums will likely go through the roof, and make it virtually operationally cost prohibitive...aside from any legislation or rule changes that are put in place.

[ShotOne]

"BBMF style squadron..." Really? Even if there was the remotest chance of that happening, do you suppose the aircraft would suddenly become "crash-proof"? Both the RAF Vintage Pair and the RNHF (Firefly) suffered fatal display crashes. And does this tragedy really support the notion that the CAA is unfit to regulate this area? Do then, previous display crashes and near-crashes (Fairford Typhoon 2005?)of service aircraft "prove" the unfitness of the RAF to regulate?

[Pontius Navigator]

The VTTS maybe the best example of a professional organization properly funded with current-on- type aircrew for vintage military aircraft. That it was publicly funded and largely dependent on display fees and a hugely expensive administration staff was its ultimate failure (not to mention engines).

To scale up such an operation for multiple types would be a massive undertaking as outside the display season your professional pilots would still need paying.

[Arfur Dent]

Well, Shot One, thank goodness for that. It's dangerous and everything's OK. Phew…….

[jindabyne]

I've previously posted my views concerning this accident, which I maintain.

That said, after a discussion with other ex-aviators in my pub last evening, nobody was able to offer an explanation as to what processes are outstanding and any relative timescales. We've all read the AAIB and CAA reports highlighted in the forum, and opinions concerning police activity; but are at a loss with respect to further procedures that are/might be necessary to bring about a conclusion.

Can anybody provide us with some clarity?

Many thanks.

[treadigraph]

Jindabyne, this reason was given for the further delay on 30th November:

"The final report into the Shoreham air crash will not be published before Christmas as hoped, a spokesperson from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch has confirmed. On the first anniversary of the crash in August, it was announced that the final report would be delivered before Christmas, confirmed the spokesperson.

"But due to one party being consulted having now asked for an extension, the report will not be published until after Christmas..."

Shoreham Airshow tragedy report delayed - Shoreham Herald (http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/shoreham-airshow-tragedy-report-delayed-1-7705807)

[Wetstart Dryrun]

As I implied earlier, maybe the way to show these aircraft is a resticted manoeuvre display. - or static.

I can nod sagely at all the plans for increasing currency/recency for more advanced demos, but for a hunter that would be start, taxi t/o, climb to 5000ft invert for loose article, 5 min aeros at 150 lb/min, cct land taxi back - 1500lb of motion lotion plus airfield fees. I guess too dear for 3 times a week practice, too demanding of service time

Shuttleworth seem to manage without combat ready Fokker Triplane pilots.

Can somebody confirm the Shoreham accident (yes, I talk about it) was the first manoeuvre? So off a controlled run-in, plenty of speed, presumably cool and collected pilot, a pull-up resulted in a crash?

...not sure you can practise for that.

[jindabyne]

Thanks Tready ---

[Treble one]

It would seem like there's a lot of hand wringing going on behind closed doors on how to deal with the outcome of the AAIB investigation?


The owner of the aircraft would seem to have admitted 'some liability' according to newspaper reports?


That MAY indicate a particular conclusion to the inquiry which means that some sort of legal proceedings may be in the offing.


If so, how this is all announced to the World in general would potentially affect any legal proceedings?

[Onceapilot]

Wetstart,
The Fokker Triplane issue is simple. Small lightweight aircraft are mostly a danger to themselves. Heavy and fast aircraft become a great danger to others, in direct proportion to their weight and at the square of their speed.:uhoh: Additionally, the complexity and low tolerance of system malfunctions of vintage mil jets counts against them when it comes to private operation. Just my opinion.

OAP

[Wetstart Dryrun]

OAP,

Thanks. I was citing Shuttleworth ref minimal hours, no 2-seaters, yet fairly benign manoeuvres, strict weather limits and experienced pilots facilitate safe displays.

You don't have to pull the wings off to please the public.

[ShotOne]

"It's dangerous and everything's OK..." No, Arfur, that doesn't remotely reflect what I wrote. Just that your "solution" wouldn't necessarily solve anything.

[Pittsextra]

Harry Heathrow:-

As ever hindsight is a wonderful thing

..and as regard to the pilots currency that is precisely what was not required here. Those granting the privileges for this pilot DA's would/could have known absolutely what his currency was. So at some point beyond the accident you can take two paths.

Either suggest that the pilot was perfectly qualified to perform at Shoreham and then you defend the process that put him in that position, OR you capitulate and throw much of the process in the bin. The second option might be valid but it surely comes with intelligent reasoning for the revised thinking and why that thinking hadn't taken place before. (and clearly simply saying "we now have multiple fatalities" doesn't say much for the risk management).

I'm not sure that throwing a few hundred hours extra at things really adds much value given we were talking a quarter clover and a pilot who not only has performed the same display in the same aircraft previously but has some years of success in competition aerobatics which go way way beyond a simple figure being flown at the time.

Unfortunately unless the pilot himself can shed light on the rational on the event then beyond perhaps simply displaying one aircraft per DA, per display season I can't see things being very effective as a solution and I think the hours total alone path seems flawed. Certainly there are other issues around process but how material they have been, well one awaits the final report. Of course should it turn out they have had no influence at all in this accident then the delays around final report publication would point to people's interest in PR.

[theonewhoknows]

I believe practise and currency are very relevant. Hundred of hours of 'previous' experience is not relevant, unless backed up by strict supervision and authorisation.

[Arfur Dent]

Mr Shot
My "solution" would not stop aircraft from being "crash proof" as you so disdainfully suggest. The RAF, over the years" has suffered many fatal crashes when fully combat ready, current pilots have either made mistakes or some external influence such as the weather (going into cloud at the top of a loop for instance) or aircraft problems have tragically intervened. That did not alter the fact that the system was basically sound and the pilots were combat ready and properly current at both their operational tasks and their display work - for which they had been specially selected.
It occurs to me, as an ex FJ QWI with 2 tours behind me, that the CAA is (was) allowing pilots who are not current to attempt similar displays when some of them should perhaps be either flying something a little less dynamic or even hanging up their kit and joining the audience. My suggestion of a BBMF type Squadron was exactly that - a suggestion. The fact that nobody would fund a few pilots to operate a display Squadron of vintage jets (they may still be in the RAF) does not mean that it's a bad idea - it means that nobody will fund it.
So, my final word is - if you want to fly fast jets carrying out low level displays - do it properly or don't do it at all. Whether the RAF or the CAA is "in charge" is irrelevant.

[pasta]

There was one private Hunter display pilot who seemed to be doing enough flying to maintain a proper level of currency, and was apparently covering his costs too, so it does appear to be possible do do it properly as an amateur. That said, I rather suspect he treated the whole enterprise (including marketing, getting bookings etc) as a full time job rather than a weekend hobby...

[Hebog]

Aircraft owner automatically accepts liability and his insurance pays out. However, I would imagine that should there be indication that there were other factors involved, then the insurance company will make a claim on the other 3rd parties insurance policy.


With regard to the consultation, my understanding is that the AAIB complete a Final draft copy which is then sent to each individual (or their representatives) and also any person/s or organisations whose reputation n may be adversely affected by the findings. They then have 28 days to make representation before the finalised report is completed and published.


Therefore, it would appear according to reports in the media that one party has asked for an extension to this timescale presumably to provide additional information or seek further advice.


However, in view of the fact that the prelim inquest hearing is scheduled in March I think the AAIB should now say to the party you have had enough time now. They can always make amendments after, as this has happened before, if it really needs to be done.


With regard to the police investigation I expect the are stuck in limbo too, as they have no further leads to follow until the AAIB report is published as this will contain all the other facts such as expert calculations, condition of aircraft etc that they have not been able to access.

[wonderboysteve]

The VTTS maybe the best example of a professional organization properly funded with current-on- type aircrew for vintage military aircraft. That it was publicly funded and largely dependent on display fees and a hugely expensive administration staff was its ultimate failure (not to mention engines).

Apologies for the drift off topic, however...

If by 'failure' you are referring to the end of flying, then I'm not sure this stacks up. There were seven possible reasons for the end of flying operations. Funding was one of them, but there was no sign that the funding model would not continue to work (in fact, the proportion of income received from 'trading' as opposed to donations gradually increased). As you will be aware, it was the withdrawal of OEM support that was the actual reason for the 'failure', which no amount of money could fix.

[Pontius Navigator]

WBS, the Vulcan is in a shed earning not a penny I understand. That is what I term ultimate failure. Even had it had OEM support it would still have needed further major servicing at cost.

[Wander00]

I guess I am flogging a dead horse, but to repeat what I wrote shortly after the accident, I still feel the title of this thread to be inappropriate, suggesting as it does that the loss of the Hunter outweighs the loss of 11 lives. I appreciate that the thread may well have been started before the OP was aware of the consequences of the crash, but perhaps the title could have been amended in the light of events. 'Nuff said.

[Snyggapa]

regarding the thread title, I completely agree, often thought the same myself

[Above The Clouds]

I guess I am flogging a dead horse, but to repeat what I wrote shortly after the accident, I still feel the title of this thread to be inappropriate, suggesting as it does that the loss of the Hunter outweighs the loss of 11 lives. I appreciate that the thread may well have been started before the OP was aware of the consequences of the crash, but perhaps the title could have been amended in the light of events. 'Nuff said.
@Wander00
You are absolutely correct, I started the thread within minutes of the crash happening, however nobody at that moment in time could have foreseen the tragedy that later unfolded.

(my bold type)

[airsound]

Pontius - trying to respond to you by PM. But PPRuNe thinks your PM box is overstuffed. (Why am I not surprised?)

So, dear thing, delete a couple of, no doubt, gems

airsound

[Wander00]

Above the Clouds - well there you go - must have been a huge shock when the full story started to come clear

[Above The Clouds]

Above the Clouds - well there you go - must have been a huge shock when the full story started to come clear
Yes it did, even with a military background and seen a few over the years.

Unfortunately even as the OP I am unable to change the title, that is for the MODs to do or I could just delete the entire thread, however that would be unfair to others who have had an input.

[Wander00]

Quite understand

[Above The Clouds]

For those who had an issue with the title of this thread, thanks to the MOD's its has now been adjusted.

ATC

[GolfSierra]

Local (often unreliable) media (http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15109690.Final_Shoreham_crash_report_to_be_published_next_we ek/) are reporting that the AAIB "final" report will be published Fri 3 March 17

[airpolice]

I'm looking forward to seeing the fruits of the AAIB investigation, which I hope will be of the entire process leading us to this point.

[Davef68]

The AAIB will really just be the end of the beginning. If the Police enquiry leads to (or is likely to lead to) prosecutions, then the inquest will be delayed until those proceedings are finished.

[NutLoose]

Some of the knock on effects from the incident based on the unreleased findings.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20170220MPD2016001Revision1.pdf

[Super VC-10]

They've just said on ITV Meridian local news that the final report will be published on 3 March.

[Treble one]

Report due out today. Radio news reporting a list of reccomendations included to prevent such an occurrence happening again.

I'm sure there will be great interest in the final report in very wide circles.

[MPN11]

BBC TV News said it will be released at 1200. I hope the on-line version in on the same timescale, otherwise this Thread will be full of people tapping their fingers on the desk.

[Heathrow Harry]

This is running on several threads on PPrune -can we agree 9or can the mods enforce) a single location today?

[H Peacock]

Hey, HH, just what I was thinking!

Having read and re-read the 'Shoreham Hunter' thread here on Military Aviation and the similar thread on Accidents and Close calls, it would make sense to agree on a single location for future posts. Perhaps it would even be appropriate to start a new thread on 'Shoreham Hunter AAIB Report' or something similar.

There is bound to be overlap on the various PPRuNe threads, but an agreement now before the report is out would seem prudent. It was an Accident, but it was a ex-Military aircraft.

[langleybaston]

Surely not yet another thread!

[Heathrow Harry]

Good idea Peacock - do you want to start it in NEWS?

[airpolice]

I have started a thread, in preparation for the release of the report at noon.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/591713-aaib-investigation-hawker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi-22-august-2015-a.html#post9694147

[NutLoose]

Report

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aircraft-accident-report-aar-12017-g-bxfi-22-august-2015

Pilot errors led to Shoreham air crash, says AAIB - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-39105085)

[Lima Juliet]

Pilot porked it, whilst others that could have stopped it, also porked it...

That is all...:sad:

[NutLoose]

That's how I read it too, padded out with a lot of recommendations re seats and engines etc that didn't actually contribute to the accident. :(

[3engnever]

Well I dare say the pilot is in for a pretty long term in the clink based on other sentences today...

[SpazSinbad]

Aircraft Accident Report 1/2017, G-BXFI
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58b9247740f0b67ec80000fc/AAR_1-2017_G-BXFI.pdf (28Mb)

Air Accidents Investigation Branch Published on Mar 3, 2017
"Air Accidents Investigation Branch video to accompany the final report of the investigation. This video is intended to help visualise the aircraft’s final manoeuvre.

The images shown are not a precise depiction of the aircraft’s behaviour at all stages of the flight. The video is not a summary of the final report, which includes other information about the circumstances of the accident and the reasons for the severity of the outcome."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u20-oh5Wblw

[glad rag]

Yes Spaz, we've all seen the video, read the report.

[MPN11]

I get a faint feeling that the pilot reverted to a recent JP experience/mind-set and associated numbers. Am I wrong?

[Alber Ratman]

Seats and other things make lots of money for the lawyers. Out of date carts may be fine for "it will do a trip" mentality, however for your insurance loss adjusters, it is a get out clause that "Your PtF wasn't really valid and we are not coughing out". Lawyers will have a field day on the aspects of airworthiness too.

[gpzz]

Not sure which thread this should be in..and apologies if its already been done..
Was any mention made of that spotter video doing the rounds which shows his extremely long takeoff run on the day in question?

[wiggy]

Well like the rest of us you could have a wade through the report....it is online and the answer is in there..

But just this once, since it is late Friday evening and I'm felling mellow...yes the initial takeoff is mentioned in the report, from a slightly dulled memory caused by having waded through 400 plus pages of the report this PM as I recall it there was no adverse comment other than it was down wind, warm, and AH lifted the nose off at a slightly lower speed than normal etc.

[effortless]

The mention of JP experience is spurious. He had his entry height dictated to him. He was. well below his entry gate.