Accident investigations and outcomes

[Pilot DAR]

We've had some detailed exchanges recently which center more on the techniques of accident investigation and how information/evidence is gathered and disseminated, than the specific accident itself. There are some interesting nuances and legalities in this exercise, and this would be a great place to discuss them.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Good call DAR.

A thought, there are four reasons for an investigation and/or report, which are not mutually exclusive, but are generally produced by different people for different reasons.


(1) The technical investigation, simply so that everybody can learn as much as possible.

(2) The investigation aimed at providing recommendations which will prevent future accidents.

(3) The investigation, generally associated with civil legal proceedings, determining legal / financial liability. In simplistic terms, this is associated with deciding whose insurance will pay out, to whom, and how much.

(4) The criminal investigation - where there is a suspicion of wrongdoing that might attract punishment. It is there to decide if there was a crime, and if so by whom, and what punishment that should attract.


As technically interested aviators, (1) generally interests us most, but in reality there are very few investigations which are totally focussed that way.

AAIB do (2), but a lot of (1) to enable that.

(3) Is to some extent essential, given that most accident involve damage or injury somewhere. Equally however, because it involves money, many people find it morally problematic.

(4) Is the most controversial, and many (including me) would argue usually actively detrimental to aviation safety as people trying to avoid punishment tend not to be very constructive in supporting the learning of safety lessons for everybody else.


We are all bad in PPrune threads at getting the four mixed up!

[9 lives]

Prior to flying in Norway last summer, I was introduced to this excellent publication:

http://luftfartstilsynet.no/incoming/VFR_Guide_2015-Web.pdf/BINARY/VFR%20Guide%202015-Web.pdf

I note that it contains a lot of (1) & (2), and presents the concept of self reporting with insulation from some punishment, so touches in the realm of (4) a bit too.

As I'm sure many do, I find reading accident reports fascinating. I'm not well versed in the civil and criminal aspects of the aftermath (and hoping to prevent getting to know them by first hand experience!)

[Flying Lawyer]

Genghis

Many civil disputes are, as you say, ultimately disputes between insurance companies but many are not.
Just a couple of examples:
The activity complained about was not covered by insurance.
An insurance company has declined liability because the insured has allegedly breached the terms of the policy. (That may be the subject of a separate dispute between insured and insured, if the insured can afford to commence proceedings to challenge the insurer's decision. ) The exclusions in GA insurance policies are extremely wide but, unlike corporations, private owners have no real choice in practical terms but to accept the standard aviation policy.

(4) Is the most controversial, and many (including me) would argue usually actively detrimental to aviation safety as people trying to avoid punishment tend not to be very constructive in supporting the learning of safety lessons for everybody else.

Not only, and not necessarily, "people trying to avoid punishment".
It includes people who have done nothing wrong but fear that they may be prosecuted. If they are, it will mean many months at least of worry, perhaps more than a year. Even if they have done nothing wrong, people understandably worry that they might be convicted. No-one can guarantee that they will not be.

They also worry about the costs it would involve - legal advice/representation and engaging an expert to assist.

From time to time over the years I've read posts saying that people who have done nothing wrong have no reason to be worried. That is utter nonsense - very easy to say if it's not you being, or at risk of being, prosecuted.

We are all bad in PPrune threads at getting the four mixed up!
I agree that many people are.
Not all.

[Genghis the Engineer]

All valid points, although those not mixing the four up occasionally are in a tiny minority (of which I'm certainly not a member).

It has occurred to me that there's a particular aspect to criminal proceedings related to air accidents that whilst probably not unique, is probably relatively unusual in an aviation context. That is the decision about whether a crime has been committed? For example, if somebody has been stabbed down a dark alley and died - it is probably a safe working assumption, in most cases, that a crime was committed. The question for the police and courts is primarily what crime, and by whom?

Where an aeroplane has crashed - whilst in a few obvious cases (Lockerby for example) it's clearcut that there was a crime - in the majority it is the opposite to the dark alley example. The issue is not whodunnit (it was the crew and operator), nor how (that's usually relatively obvious) - but whether what occurred was a crime or not? The legal process seems to handle those questions, but it seems to me to be conceptually a bit different to most criminal cases?


Most importantly however - as you identify, both the fact and the threat of criminal or disciplinary proceedings: or litigation where the recovery goes beyond what's insured, highly problematic from the viewpoint of trying to share lessons towards preventing future accidents. The current EASA framework of "just culture" has if anything moved us more in that problematic direction as well - as it seems partially to have removed the assumption of good intent, which I always found extremely helpful when trying to find ways to prevent future accidents as it meant that people involved in something were (usually) quite open about things, and that attitude seems to be receding somewhat.

A well known example was G-STYX, probably not AAIB's finest hour. The very direct finger pointing by AAIB at certain people and organisations, and the early involvement of CAA's enforcement function, probably put back the implementation of useful safety lessons by 3+ years. This seemed to me then, and now, that a desire in certain quarters to create retribution, was at the root of that and deeply unhelpful to the cause of safety.

[India Four Two]

Genghis,

G-STYX rang a bell with me, but I couldn't remember the details. However, a quick Google showed me it was the Eastchurch flexwing accident.

I had read the AAIB report but I didn't recall any controversy. Today I found this site:

https://sites.google.com/site/gstyxstory/Home

which is fascinating, but heart-breaking reading.

[Genghis the Engineer]

That is the accident. I was unaware of that website, nor who the author is. Reading a few bits, I don't think that it can be taken as a complete, tested and unbiased account - but equally it shows very well the massive problems caused by the approach taken in various quarters to it.

[Flying Lawyer]

Genghis
Where an aeroplane has crashed - whilst in a few obvious cases (Lockerby for example) it's clearcut that there was a crime - in the majority it is the opposite to the dark alley example. The issue is not whodunnit (it was the crew and operator), nor how (that's usually relatively obvious) - but whether what occurred was a crime or not? The legal process seems to handle those questions, but it seems to me to be conceptually a bit different to most criminal cases?
Not as different as you might assume.
The following selection comes immediately to mind but there are many other examples: Dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter, rape where the defence is consent, fraud, assaults where the defence is self-defence.
In each, the issue is almost always whether a crime was committed – not 'Whodunnit'.

Most importantly however - as you identify, both the fact and the threat of criminal or disciplinary proceedings: or litigation where the recovery goes beyond what's insured, highly problematic from the viewpoint of trying to share lessons towards preventing future accidents.
I fear that what is already a problem may become greater in future.

A well known example was G-STYX, probably not AAIB's finest hour. The very direct finger pointing by AAIB at certain people and organisations, and the early involvement of CAA's enforcement function, probably put back the implementation of useful safety lessons by 3+ years. This seemed to me then, and now, that a desire in certain quarters to create retribution, was at the root of that and deeply unhelpful to the cause of safety.
I agree.
Link to the G-STYX thread: http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/208990-aaib-investigation-leads-manslaughter-charges-update-prosecution-withdrawn.html
Note: It was a police investigation, not CAA enforcement, but that doesn't detract from the points you make.

(Edit) Upon reflection, you may be correct that CAA enforcement was also involved in the investigation. I don't recall them being, but I'm not certain.
The pair whose conduct remains clearly in my mind are the AAIB Inspector and the police officer in charge of the criminal investigation.

The G-STYX thread contains a link to another prosecution: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/18791-helicopter-engineer-cleared-manslaughter-after-crash.html

The difference in attitude and approach between the AAIB Inspectors in those two cases could not have been more stark. I had great respect for the skill, objectivity and complete impartiality of the (now retired) Inspector who investigated the helicopter case. The G-STYX inspector was unique in my experience.

[DownWest]

This stirs a few emotions with me. While I was at Shipdham, I noticed some slight movement on the stabilator of one of our Twincoms. Closer investigation revealed a problem with the two frames that supported the bearings for the stabilator cross tube. A chat with the Piper agents resulted in a complete breakdown of the rear fuselarge and replacement of the two frames. This was completed and signed off. A few weeks later the a/c crashed on circuit in misty conditions, five of the six occupants died. The pilot was a friend. You can imagine the feelings I had. I received a call from the CAA area surveyor, a regular visitor, who told me not to worry as 'my' tail was intact. The threat of prosecution was always a little niggle at the back of ones mind, mainly because the legal mob have their own interests.

[9 lives]

We are all bad in PPRuNe threads at getting the four mixed up!
I agree that many people are.
Not all.

In fairness, pilots on a pilot forum could be forgiven for not being entirely conversant in detailed legal matters, as perhaps lawyers on a law forum might slip up a bit if the topic shifts to aviation. Hopefully we (or I guess nearly all of us) can absorb more legal understanding as we go along....

[Flying Lawyer]

I was not referring to either "detailed legal matters" or lawyers when I made that comment.


The legislative framework for air accident investigations is set out in posts 894 & 904 of the Hunter thread in this forum: http://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/566536-hawker-hunter-down-shoreham-23.html

I explained a relatively recent very important Court of Appeal decision regarding the use of AAIB Reports in civil proceedings and the potentially adverse implications for future air accident investigations, and consequently flight safety, in various posts between 1481 and 1513 of the Hunter thread in the Mil Forum: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/566533-hawker-hunter-loss-shoreham-airshow-75.html

I also summarised in that thread the concerns expressed by the AAIB Chief Inspector.
His concerns are relevant to the topic of this thread and well worth reading: See post 1490


No useful purpose would be served by repeating the background law in this thread.

FL

[9 lives]

Though not aviation related, the report of this event

Hillsborough Stadium disaster: Jury finds 96 soccer fans were 'unlawfully killed' - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillsborough-stadium-jury-soccer-fans-unlawfully-killed-1.3553082)

could be seen to have a parallel to aviation events where harm comes to the public through inadequate planning or execution of safety considerations.

[9 lives]

I was not referring to either "detailed legal matters" or lawyers when I made that comment.

My mistake, I did not understand the reference. I personally found GtE's description helpful and useful, and wanted to show support.

pilots on a pilot forum could be forgiven for not being entirely conversant in detailed legal matters

My too broad wording.

I should have written: "FWIW, I could forgive pilots on a pilot forum for not being entirely conversant in detailed legal matters".

I defer to those more qualified than I in legal matters and interpretations in those discussions. And, this is a good place for them!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Though not aviation related, the report of this event

Hillsborough Stadium disaster: Jury finds 96 soccer fans were 'unlawfully killed' - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillsborough-stadium-jury-soccer-fans-unlawfully-killed-1.3553082)

could be seen to have a parallel to aviation events where harm comes to the public through inadequate planning or execution of safety considerations.
Not to mention that the confusion between the desire for retribution, the desire in some quarters not to attract blame and retribution, and the need to learn lessons and prevent a recurrence have all tended to be in many ways mutually exclusive.

You probably won't be surprised Step to know that the particular story has filled the British media this week. It's an awful tragedy that has been compounded by poor practices, and been with us for a long time.

[Jetblu]

"It's an awful tragedy that has been compounded by poor practices"

.....and monumental unlawful deceit.

The irony is that the same brigade are now going about in an attempt to make a criminal matter.

You just couldn't make it up.

[Flying Lawyer]

Step Turn
If you read the sequence of exchanges you will see that Genghis and I concluded in almost complete agreement.

When I said "Not all" I wasn't referring to lawyers but to the many pilots who understand that there can be, and often is, a conflict between productive air accident investigation and legal proceedings (whether potential or actual). As has been amply demonstrated in the Hunter thread in this forum, there are also many who don't.
In my experience, those pilots who have thought through the issues are more likely to understand the competing interests than most lawyers because most lawyers know little or nothing about air accident investigations and their purpose.

Understanding the problem does not require detailed (or any) knowledge of legal matters, merely common sense.
Human nature is such that people are less likely to be full and frank with the AAIB if they fear that there will or may be repercussions for them. That applies whether or not they have actually done anything wrong.

Genghis Not to mention that the confusion between the desire for retribution, the desire in some quarters not to attract blame and retribution, and the need to learn lessons and prevent a recurrence have all tended to be in many ways mutually exclusive.Precisely.

[Pittsextra]

Question. When I read about G-STYX or G-AOIL isn't the issue less about the use of the AAIB report in court but the content/integrity of the report itself?

Fundamentally the pilot of G-AOIL view of the major cause of the accident is of less focus in the AAIB report and when I read this:-

It is fair to say that when the report was published there was a fair degree of outrage amongst the microlight community in the UK at this aspect of it, as many perceived it to fall well below the standards of impartiality that had come to be expected from the AAIB.

via this link https://sites.google.com/site/gstyxstory/Home/background

It strikes me that actually the detriment in these cases to aviation safety is not the fact an AAIB report may be used in court but the quality of the report itself.

Yet the AAIB report is not the beginning and the end of aviation safety, as those reading 'Air Pilot' this month are reminded with the page article on CHIRP, the Confidential Human Factors Independent Reporting Programme.

If you read the magazine it also contains the levels of reporting to CHIRP and in 2015 just 23 report were made from the GA sector. That doesn't seem that high to me, nor to the author Air Commodore (ret'd) Dugmore. I mention because whilst it is laudable that people engage in this way it doesn't seem that very many wish to even when the body you report to has "confidential" in its title.

In fact this was also commented upon within the context of Shoreham. It became easy to use the line "its been over 60 years since similar accident..." but what that fails to acknowledge are all the near misses. A) there has been no record keeping of learning points / outcomes and B) as reflected upon in the pre-season meeting reporting in any event is very very low.

On that evidence do we all have the pent up desire to confess all because the evidence seems to suggest that even when the consequences are nil we largely fail to pipe up.

Turning back to the AAIB reporting, when you reflect that accidents likely to involved criminal or civil proceedings also likely involve the death of the aircrew one wonders just how less full and frank one could be with the AAIB in any event. Therefore any conclusion the AAIB might be left to make they are highly likely to be doing so without input from the pilot(s).

[Flying Lawyer]

Question. When I read about G-STYX or G-AOIL isn't the issue less about the use of the AAIB report in court but the content/integrity of the report itself?


Answer: No.
The issue is flight safety.

The answer might be different if asked in a legal forum because different considerations apply but, as has correctly been pointed out, this is an aviation website.
I have answered as a pilot, who also happens to be a lawyer with experience relevant to the topic under discussion.

CHIRP and AAIB:
There is a big difference between taking the initiative to report an incident to CHIRP and assisting an AAIB investigation when approached directly and asked to do so.

[Pittsextra]

Quote:
Question. When I read about G-STYX or G-AOIL isn't the issue less about the use of the AAIB report in court but the content/integrity of the report itself?

Answer: No.
The issue is flight safety.

The answer might be different if asked in a legal forum because different considerations apply but, as has correctly been pointed out, this is an aviation website.
I have answered as a pilot, who also happens to be a lawyer with experience relevant to the topic under discussion.

CHIRP and AAIB:
There is a big difference between taking the initiative to report an incident to CHIRP and assisting an AAIB investigation when approached directly and asked to do so.

This is just arguing for the sake of it.

You know when I said (you do because you quoted me) "Isn't the issue..." The issue of flight safety. i.e. uses of the AAIB report in court or a dodgy AAIB report, perhaps worse a dodgy AAIB in court but never-the-less if the AAIB report is invalid how is that positive for flight safety?

You say you are answering as a pilot so putting the law and courts to one side - how is a poor / invalid / false AAIB report good for flight safety?

In the end in both the examples I gave the issue primarily is the AAIB final report. Sure there maybe additional factors of consideration from the use that report in court but in the end the reality is it was the court actions that became the motivation to get a different perspective on the accidents. So you could argue that the aviation community benefited from the pain that individuals had to go through in fighting their case.

That is a failure of the AAIB not the legal system because otherwise you seem to suggest that its OK to have some poor AAIB reports that come to incorrect conclusions as long as nobody gets prosecuted.

As an aside sadly the EC225 helicopter is back in focus and if you look at the history of reporting with the last set of accidents - where the AAIB at one point mis-identified the issue with a batch of shafts - it will be interesting to see if the ultimate conclusion still proves robust.

[Piltdown Man]

There are two main features of a modern investigation. The "what" and the "why". The actual outcome is often self evident but even there you are constantly faced with surprises. Therefore you start any investigation by grabbing as much as you can. Pictures, measurements, manuals, records, data, witness statements, video etc. Time will start destroying your evidence the second after it occurred. Once you have your initial evidence, you can start putting it together and eventually you will create a picture of what (probably) happened. At the same time, you will have unintentionally netted a far bit of "side catch". Dealing with this can sometimes be more interesting than the initial investigation.

The next bit is the tough one. The "why". Only with a good understanding of the "what" can you move forward on this aspect. And once you have the "why" then what you have to do prevent reoccurrence normally becomes self evident.

This procedure depends on a full disclosure by all parties. Therefore, it is very important to provide protection to all of those involved, especially the ones at the sharp end. If you don't have that protection there is not much point in starting an investigation because information will go missing, details will be "forgotten" or data and records will be amended or destroyed. This is clearly demonstrated in the Hillsborough and the debacle over the Southern Health NHS Trust. The main players these events knew the heavy hand of the judicial system would be involved. Knowing the outcome would be be punishment, evidence was altered, buried and destroyed. There was no improvement in safety and the public have picked up the bill. Assuming a reasonably safe starting point, do we want safety or punishment? It is difficult have both in our modern society.

[Flying Lawyer]

PittsextraThis is just arguing for the sake of it.My post was not an argument. I have no intention of arguing with you.

I agree with you that a "poor / invalid / false" report does not enhance flight safety.
That includes reports based upon incomplete information as a result of people not fully cooperating with/assisting the AAIB - for the reasons already explained by me and others in the Hunter threads and set out by Genghis in this thread. The AAIB cannot properly be blamed in such circumstances. Far from it. The Chief Inspector of the AAIB has (as you are aware) expressed his concerns, and the reasons for them, in some detail. I agree with him.

..... because otherwise you seem to suggest that its OK to have some poor AAIB reports that come to incorrect conclusions as long as nobody gets prosecuted.

I did not and would not suggest anything of the sort.
Nor can it be reasonably inferred from anything I have said here or in other threads.

(Edit)

Piltdown Man

You posted while I was writing.
Good explanation of the issues and associated problems. :ok:

[Pittsextra]

FL - the reason I said

That is a failure of the AAIB not the legal system because otherwise you seem to suggest that its OK to have some poor AAIB reports that come to incorrect conclusions as long as nobody gets prosecuted.

is because when I asked

Question. When I read about G-STYX or G-AOIL isn't the issue less about the use of the AAIB report in court but the content/integrity of the report itself?


You replied

Answer: No.
The issue is flight safety.

then further write

I agree with you that a "poor / invalid / false" report does not enhance flight safety.
That includes reports based upon incomplete information as a result of people not fully cooperating with/assisting the AAIB - for the reasons already explained by me and others in the Hunter threads and set out by Genghis in this thread. The AAIB cannot properly be blamed in such circumstances. Far from it.

Where did the pilot of G-AOIL not fully co-operate? He did, he maintained all along that he had a control restriction. Its just the AAIB did not choose to focus upon that element.

The pilot died in G-STYX so he was never going to be fully co-operate was he, but where in the link here:-

https://sites.google.com/site/gstyxstory/Home/background

Who didn't co-operate in that investigation? Was the final report flawed because the people didn't co-operate or because the conclusions were just wrong/incomplete? In that link I can read:-

the case against the inspector was deeply flawed, that the AAIB report had drawn conclusions from the evidence that were not fully supported by it

That is not the same as the AAIB tried did the best with what material they had.

Nor is it the same as attempting to charge people on the basis of their own evidence which was given in good faith.

When you say

The Chief Inspector of the AAIB has (as you are aware) expressed his concerns, and the reasons for them, in some detail.

Yes you can follow the logic of the view but in practice how many examples really fit that narrative?

[Flying Lawyer]

Pittsextra

I do not wish to continue exchanges with you because I have concluded that it is a waste of (my) time.
I have already explained the issues and associated problems to you several times in the Hunter threads.

You are, of course, free to continue chasing your tail, but I have no desire to join you.

[Pittsextra]

FL - I find your response bizarre. The general overview and various regulatory references have been set out as you say. The regulation however does allow reports to be used if the state sees fit - hence the debate one assumes? Other points are being challenged by the various questions in the last post.

The biggest threat to safety in the two accidents cited by others here seem more closely related to the conclusions in the report than the use of that report subsequently in court. When I posed that as a question you said "answer, no".

[Jwscud]

Only the AAIB will know how forthcoming the crew of G-WNSB were - the commander said he could not remember the approach details, which is not necessarily surprising given he suffered a serious injury in the impact.

However, were I in his position with the police also heavily involved, I would be fairly cautious about sharing any partial recollections I might have, no matter how much they might have helped the accident investigation.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Jwscud;

You make an interesting point. I have been questioned by the AAIB following a commercial air transport accident. I can't remember the exact words of the statement they read out before the questioning started but it was along the lines of "we are here to determine what happened. We are not part of any disciplinary process, however the results of our report may be used by your employers, the CAA or police if they believe you have been negligent in any way."

The problem I came up against was that the inspector had effectively decided in his hotel room the night of the accident, and the night before interviewing me what had caused it and accused me of a gross error in my performance calculations. Luckily I had friend with me from BALPA and he realised the inspector's mistake. By that time I had been questioned for two hours fifteen minutes without a break.

When the inspector's mistake was pointed out the rest of the interview went quite quickly (about another hour and a half) what really helped us was when we were able to put the FDR data into a simulator and show exactly how the aircraft behaved. I was shocked at how similar the outcomes were.

A year later the report came out and the P2 and I were gratified to see that there was nothing we could have done, but thanks to the spoutings of a late unlamented journalist some mud stuck.

I learned a couple of lessons from my experience:
1. I had been quite seriously injured, but in the trauma/shock of the aftermath didn't realise it and was not in fact fit to be interviewed.
2. NEVER, EVER GO INTO AN AAIB INTERVIEW WITHOUT KNOWLEDGABLE REPRESENTATION OR A LAWYER. The AAIB are not infallible, but they are exceptionally good. I have visited a couple of times since, both as an interested party and to answer some questions about a later accident I was involved on the periphery of. They are highly dedicated people, but when you prove them wrong they listen and learn.

SND

[horizon flyer]

Very Sir Niall Dementia this applies to the police or CAA. They are not your friends and your arse could be on the line. It is also a good idea to simulate the interview before hand with informed friends and go through expected question and obtain any missing information before hand. Then you will have no surprises, can be in control of the meeting and have a straight story in your favour. Trying to think on your feet in a very stressful situation is asking for a disaster. In a past flying group had two similar situations and it ensured the AAIB and CAA received the correct message although the AAIB missed many of the engineer points as to why things went wrong and did not make the correct diagnoses.

[Pittsextra]

Some good colour from SND post, although again it highlights another case where the fundamental problem was an error of judgement at the AAIB.

Recently the Gnat/CarFest accident has been reported upon by the AAIB and the report seems readily accepted. Now a fuller debate is unable to be had yet because the accident which is in a similar arena has yet to be reported upon, however it will be interesting to see if that report is as readily accepted.

Further the Gnat accident highlights issues of currency and recency, yet I'm interested in the element that created that issue. i.e. during the accident investigation process had the aircraft suffered an obvious structural failure would the AAIB highlighted the pilots currency / recency as a potential issue? Would we in the peanut gallery have taken issue with the same? Others are focused upon him being a PPL, but of course that isn't the case in the yet to be reported accident.

Then what of the timing of that information release? After all if the AAIB were always going to be concerned with pilot experience and type of aircraft being flown (regardless of the cause of the accident) that would have been known in the Gnat accident within days/weeks of the accident. Why not flag that earlier and by May 2016 authority / interested parties would be giving solid answers not taking away the question.

[dsc810]

I have many times in the past on many forums said much the same as Sir Niall above.
This applies to the CAA/AAIB the Police, the Inland Revenue, the RSPA, TV licence inspectors, and even insurance companies.

None of them are your friends
They are all looking for a 'quick, cheap win', and one which make them look good to their bosses: and that primarily involves stitching YOU up as the culprit.

This was first explained to me by a semi-retired lawyer giving an industrial law sub-course as part of my engineering degree.
Once they discover as he explained that you are going to be as awkward as possible and COST them seriously amounts of money, time and manpower they will go off and look for someone more gulible.

I would second the comment never to go to an interview with any of the above not exclusive list without legal representation - in fact I would never go in the first place and require all questions and answers to be in writing.

[Jetblu]

Sound advice in the last 4 or 5 posts regarding legal representation.

In today's climate, that advice needs to be made in to a sticky.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

so let's say you're helping police with enquiries. You ask them to put every question in writing. And you want to respond in writing. Assume for one moment they humour you.....you are going to be spending days in the interview room.

Can you imagine in court proceedings. Whilst giving evidence or under cross examination...you want to give your answers in writing.

[mary meagher]

As I have now stepped down from instructing or solo flying, any accidents involving my flying will be the fault of the supervising instructor/solo pilot!
Over the course of my 3,000 + hours, (I don't bother keeping track any more!)
I have observed and reported to the AAIB three interesting events.

In Case One, myself and two other tug pilots had quit flying for the day, as the weather at the gliding club was very poor. We were gazing at the murk out the clubhouse window, as a Cessna 180 that is KEPT ON OUR FIELD approached downwind, did not touch down until more than half way down the runway, and carried on into the hedge at the far end - where his wife had been waiting in her car! In his report to the AAIB he blamed it on the gliding club not responding to his radio call, (we never do, and he knew it!) nor did we advise him of conditions (we don't do that either, when we have shut down for the day! Of course the AAIB gave credence to his evidence.

Second event. A helicopter lifted out of a field directly on the approach line where a glider was completing his first five hour solo. I was running the ground events, we had absolutely no idea he was there so close, or that he was there at all. His report to the AAIB was economical with the verity.

And number three, I was towing a glider toward Shipston. The very experienced and qualified pilot on tow warned me of traffic, I looked but didn't see it, and he then said in no uncertain tones, TURN LEFT NOW! ! ! ! !
So I did, and the light aircraft, which was training some numpty in blind flying with some of the windows obstructed, more or less ran its wheels over my roof. And said they never saw us at all! Here again the story was a tad different from our experience, but the AAIB has to listen to all concerned. I give them great credit that they actually tracked down the numpties from radar evidence. Good show! But I did call the airfield where this flight had originated, and got some details they left out of their version! About the blocked vision! haven't these people ever heard about foggles?

Glider pilots assume that power chaps don't look out. Self preservation.

[Genghis the Engineer]

2 and 3 there sound like reports to the Joint Airprox Board, not AAIB.

G

[mary meagher]

Thanks, G. Quite right, Airprox report, not AAIB. Do they share anything? same office? same investigators? just wondering....

mwm

[Genghis the Engineer]

No, totally separate organisations.

In my dealings with both, I've found AAIB much more thorough and useful in terms of constructing useable recommendations likely to actually enhance flight safety.

G

[Tinribs]

During my RAF service and then civil flying, 20+ years in each, I was a bystander in two accidents and a participant in two.
The standards of investigation vary greatly
My accident report from Russia stated "the pilot allowed the helicopter tail to touch the ground during the landing". Actually the aircraft was out of control for the last 100 ft and crashed nose first into soft ground as shown by my post crash photographs. The nose area was smashed in but the nose leg was intact
There is, of course, room for opinion but the facts don't change.
Aswell as doubting the media and interested parties reports we should have great care accepting without question some countries statements,