AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015 [Archive] - Page 4

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 09:13

After the accident any council and potential sponsor might be alot harder to convince, which is a real shame as the show was always very well attended and RAFA earned alot of much needed financial help from it

No-one would blame local authorities and potential sponsors in getting cold feet, but maybe if the show is missed for a year or two and the organisers and anyone else involved or who are considering becoming involved along with the local community are able to sit down and discuss how to relaunch the show either as before from the airport or as a beach show, maybe it can be saved and RAFA can still benefit from it

Although it is a difficult show, it would be a huge pity to lose it completely both for the charities that benefit from it and the people who go to watch year after year and, of course, the local community....a pared down show whether beach or airport orientated would be better than losing it in its entirety

9 lives

30th Mar 2017, 12:30

After the accident any council and potential sponsor might be alot harder to convince,

The "Elephant in the room" is that the promoters of the airshow want to offer excitement, and the pilots want to be seen to fulfill their role in this expectation. But too much excitement, and it all goes the wrong way. No one, particularly promoters and organizers like to admit the possibility of, nor discuss accidents, and I have never seen the word "safe" as an element of promoting an airshow, but perhaps it's time.

What happened at Shoreham is well known, so it should not be a stretch to discuss in the council/promoter meetings for airshow preparation. Perhaps a discussion which has the theme: "Let's dial it back a little, display the aircraft, but build in an extra layer of safety for everyone, no corner of the envelope stuff." Hopefully this would make the job of the Show Boss much less stressful, and the CAA's oversight role easier...

H Peacock

30th Mar 2017, 13:03

I'm afraid you are simply never going to stop aircraft crashing at air shows. It has happened before and will always continue to happen. I agree you need to look at the risks, and whilst I'm firmly of the opinion that the T7 crashed at Shoreham as a direct result of pilot error, you cannot and should not try to reduce the risk to others (non-aircrew) to zero.

It was right that after Ramstein the 'on crowd vector' was looked at. The Frecce's 3-way pass accident was possibly waiting to happen, and the outcome was always going to be serious, but you simply cannot sterilise the entire area under which a displaying aircraft could crash. Even coastal venues have an element of risk to the crowd. Whilst the JP at Southport dishing out of its barrel roll didn't crash, it could well have done and would probably have done so on land.

The appropriate display line (100, 230 or 450m from the designated crowd line) does not extend much beyond the venue's boundary. I can't see how you can police exactly what happens below it never mind the possible fall-out area that an aircraft -or part of - could reach.

Life is full of some risk. Didn't some jogger years ago get hit on the head (and killed) by a rogue umbrella caught in a gale on a deserted beach? Tragic, but simply unlucky. Have we tried to ban umbrellas or jogging? If there is a finite risk of something happening then you must accept that - very occasionally - it will happen?

airpolice

30th Mar 2017, 14:42

and the CAA's oversight role easier...

How much easier do you want it to be?

They might improve things by say, simply coming up with a number of hours flown, in a number of days, on a type. To establish what that number should be, they could ask an organisation with experience in such matters, like CFS. Then they could state that a DA is only valid when those preconditions are met.

I don't think that with current e-filing systems, it is too much to ask for ALL pilots to be asked to "validate" their licences by logging on once a year and entering some figures.

How much it would do for safety, I can't say. But it would be a start.

9 lives

30th Mar 2017, 15:29

I'm afraid you are simply never going to stop aircraft crashing at air shows.

Is true.

A mentor of mine (retired aerobatic/airshow pilot) would preach to we impressionables "No one ever died flying a normal circuit". While not strictly true, I took his point. It's the low altitude extreme maneuvering which is causing the spectacular (not in the favourable sense) crashes. I'm not advocating a ban on low altitude display aerobatics, though I'm not enthusiastic about seeing it flown in larger/vintage or high energy aircraft with very little room for error.

I opine that airshow spectators need to be trained to understand that "we just don't do that anymore" when it comes to extreme low level aerobatics, and high energy or vintage aircraft pilots planning to cut a margin of error very close. We will not offer to sell you this experience, join us at a show which we are all comfortable presenting with low stress.

and the CAA's oversight role easier...

How much easier do you want it to be?

If the CAA and airshow organizer are not being asked to approve low level aerobatics with very tight margins, it will be easier. Move it all up a few hundred feet, and cancel if low ceiling that day. If the spectators complain, say: "we just don't do that any more". Iphones and binoculars are easily employed to improve the view.

I was at Oshkosh in 1983, when a Siai Marchetti SF260 was fatally crashed right in front of me. The pilot was attempting to impress with a very low altitude spin. The show was stopped, and it spoiled the afternoon for everyone, and it ultimately delayed a lot of our departures for home, with a closed runway.

I recalled this when I organized very small local airshows in 1991 and 1992, when I was easily able to explain my rationale for no low level aerobatics to the two Transport Canada inspectors, from whom I sought the required authorization. Easy show, everyone enjoyed, and low stress for all of us.

Every now and then, society needs a kick start to changed behaviour. If the Shoreham accident report isn't it, I can't think what would be.

RAT 5

30th Mar 2017, 15:37

This would not be a continuation of the previous Shoreham event, a fundraiser for RAFA.

Ah; that I did not realise and it would be sad if RAFA lost any funds.

Hebog

30th Mar 2017, 16:16

I note other forums are asking if airshows should employ realtime data and the FDD can compare this to the pilots planned display. If something is awry he/she can call an immediate stop to the pilot with the necessary reporting afterwards.

Would this system have made any difference to the outcome of the Shoreham incident. At what point would the FDD have known it wasn't as per the pilots details on the planned display.

LOMCEVAK

1st Apr 2017, 08:21

Whilst recorded data may help post display analysis by a FDD, real time analysis and FDD intervention has many considerations regarding its viability. If a pilot approaches the start of a manoeuvre and is off parameters (speed, height or positioning) he will fly an alternative manoeuvre. If the cloudbase changes during a display, he will change from a full to a rolling or flat display. Those are aspects of display flying which are demonstrated by a competent, professional display pilot. There may be several options and a FDD cannot know which one a pilot has chosen. If a rigid fixed sequence is mandated it will put pressure on a pilot to enter a manoeuvre from marginal conditions because he is not allowed any options and this can actually compromise safety. As an example, if I am flying an aircraft where I use 350 KAS as a minimum entry speed to enter a loop and 300 KIAS to enter a 1/2 Cuban and I reach the planned entry point for a loop at 320 KIAS I may elect to fly a 1/2 Cuban followed by a positioning turn for the subsequent manoeuvre. How is a FDD to know that? Does he call a stop? Intervention may cause distraction, confusion (if the reason is not clear to the pilot) and can actually be detrimental to safety. I once watched a MiG-29 practise at Farnborough where the pilot was consistently infringing the crowd line. The FDD told the Kommisar who was supervising to tell the pilot to land which he did immediately - 2/3 down the runway and ran off the end! I have been the leader of a FCC when an item infringed a separation minima due to misjudgement. I was told to tell him to stop and clear by someone who often fulfilled my role but had no authority at that display. I refused to call stop because at that point of his display (a decelerating transition towards the crowd) he would then have had to clear over the crowd creating a greater safety hazard. The pilot corrected for the next manoeuvre and I was happy for him to continue, and the person who interjected subsequently apologised. Display flying and supervision is not black and white; it requires judgement based on experience and knowledge.

DaveReidUK

1st Apr 2017, 08:44

As an example, if I am flying an aircraft where I use 350 KAS as a minimum entry speed to enter a loop and 300 KIAS to enter a 1/2 Cuban and I reach the planned entry point for a loop at 320 KIAS I may elect to fly a 1/2 Cuban followed by a positioning turn for the subsequent manoeuvre.

Surely if you are flying a planned display routine and miss any of the gate parameters for the next scheduled manoeuvre, that point should mark the end of the routine?

LOMCEVAK

1st Apr 2017, 09:09

DRUK

For an experienced and competent display pilot, no. He/she should have considered options to follow for missing a gate and have planned alternatives in order to continue the display. A display is an exhibition to spectators and a display pilot should be able to fill the planned 'exhibition' slot if he can do so safely. Most military displays do require a termination if a manoeuvre cannot be flown as planned, but with the exception of RAFAT, BBMF, RNHF etc most military display pilots only fly 1 or 2 seasons and so may not have developed the capacity to substitute alternative manoeuvres, and hence they also have a large training and currency requirement.

For some very light and slow aircraft, the display must be varied according to the wind and often that can only be judged fully once airborne.

H Peacock

1st Apr 2017, 13:15

Having the FDD trying to talk to you during a display is not going to help in the slightest and would inevitably lead to some very significant confusion. It makes sense that the FDD has the power to 'red card' you during any display - he may have seen something significant that the display pilot hasn't seen, but I can't see him having enough realtime data to hand to make a sensible call about stopping you at critical gate points.

You'll never get able to guarantee a display pilot won't crash. Once in many many hundreds of displays an accident will occur which will involve members of the public. It's the same with commercial aviation. Have a read into the provisional report on the Turkish Cargo 747 crash. An experienced crew managed to let the FCS fly them down to DH almost 2nm beyond where they should have been. A GA actioned about 4 sec after passing their 100ft DH meant a crash was inevitable. Just staggering that a crew could screw-up in style killing themselves and 35 innocent others on the ground. Thankfully these tragedies are invariable infrequent, but you'll never stop them happening.

Hebog

19th May 2017, 11:17

Pre inquest hearing set for June 20th.

Is this appropriate or not Shoreham Airshow crash witness makes documentary on overcoming trauma - Shoreham Herald (http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/shoreham-airshow-crash-witness-makes-documentary-on-overcoming-trauma-1-7967362)

brakedwell

20th May 2017, 09:49

I would say: Not.

Chronus

21st May 2017, 19:38

In its use as "proper, suitable and fitting", yes it is. Many a soldier trained and hardened for combat has suffered with PTSD. Is it not therefore reasonable to expect a civilian who has witnessed such a horror not to remain unaffected. Sights and sounds are one thing, but what about the smells. They remain forever. Ask any who are first at the scene of a horrific air disaster.

wiggy

22nd May 2017, 08:38

I may be wrong but suspect the issue that hebog/brakedwell are addressing is not whether a witness or witnesses have suffered from PTSD or not, I suspect the issue being raised is it appropriate for a documentary to be made when AFAAIK there has yet to be an inquest, yet to be a Coroners final report, and there is still the chance of criminal proceddings.

OvertHawk

22nd May 2017, 11:43

I suppose it depends on what the subject of the documentary is?

If it's about the accident - then I would certainly have concerns.

If it's about the individual's experience of PTSD and coping therewith then it should not be a conflict.

DaveReidUK

22nd May 2017, 11:49

We've already been told that it's the latter.

Direct Bondi

7th Jun 2017, 11:34

Does anyone know why the “comprehensive” 452 page AAIB report fails to mention a flying display performed by the same pilot on 21 September, 2014, that was deemed unsafe?

“…the aircraft [Jet Provost] was observed to be inside the lateral separation minima for the event and also below the minimum height stipulated in the Article 162 Permission issued by the CAA.

A stop call was immediately issued by the Flying Display Director (FDD) on the display radio frequency and the flying display was terminated” – The Telegraph, link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/12136785/Shoreham-crash-pilot-Andy-Hill-was-involved-in-another-air-incident-a-year-earlier.html

The subject display is available on YouTube. Note: height at start and completion of maneuvers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHngQ8TmqU4

The Telegraph also states: “The Civil Aviation Authority confirmed it had an inspector at the Southport show, who spoke to Mr. Hill about the incident”

Apparently, the duty of the CAA to ensure public safety was fulfilled by speaking to Mr. Hill - any additional time and effort would have hindered the CAA crusade in pursuing pilots with high BMI levels (a formula invented by a Belgian chocolate maker in 1830).

Tay Cough

7th Jun 2017, 12:00

Probably because they didn't consider it to be relevant.

G0ULI

7th Jun 2017, 12:19

It is the job of the AAIB to investigate an air accident, not to assign or apportion blame.

Information or evidence of previous incidents may only be included if it is directly relevant to the accident under investigation. So previous breaches of display flying limits may be considered by criminal investgators when deciding to mount a prosecution, but not by the accident investigators for this specific incident. Had the aircraft suffered unrepaired damage as a result of some previous incident, then that would be relevant and included in the investigation to be eliminated or implicated as a possible cause.

The pilot's experience, actions and liability need to be assessed seperately unless there is prima facie evidence that this is a direct cause of the accident. It is interesting to note that all AAIB reports take considerable pains to anonymise the identity of pilots and crew involved, even if the full details are already published and in the public domain.

One of the areas addressed in the report was what degree of sanctions were applied to display pilots who breached the safety rules. It seems that a quiet word in the bar or via telephone after the display was concluded was deemed sufficient in most cases.

Direct Bondi

7th Jun 2017, 13:11

The CAA uses its resources to send threatening letters, investigate and test due to BMI levels, as too much pie puts the public in grave danger.

Flying too low and violating safety regulations at large public gatherings requires only a “quiet word in the bar”. Apparently, this method of CAA oversight is ineffective.

You are confusing relevance with the convenience of letting the CAA off the hook.

Super VC-10

7th Jun 2017, 16:19

Hill was interviewed again under caution on 1 June.

Shoreham air crash: Pilot Andy Hill re-interviewed by police - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-40186667)

Chronus

7th Jun 2017, 18:18

Direct Bondi`s comments are highly pertinent. The book " Darker Shades of Blue " by Dr. Tony Kern is worth reading on the subject of rogue pilots. In writing this book he was motivated by the true story of Lt Col Arthur "Bud" Holland,and began a personal quest to understand rogue pilots. His book helps how to recognize their tendencies and how a misperception of "the right stuff" can lead to tragedy.

wiggy

7th Jun 2017, 20:21

I think Bondi may have a point about the medical "branch" of the CAA...that aside I'll admit that whilst not having read the book I'm uneasy that that some are perhaps starting to draw comparisons ( albeit perhaps unwittingly) between the likes of Bud Holland and Andy Hill.

Can any of the display pilots here tell us how often in a season/career a generally law abiding "non rogue" pilot might provoke a "knock it off" from the Flying Display Director.

Chronus

8th Jun 2017, 10:19

The issue that is raised is what personal characteristics and qualities distinguish the rogue pilot.

In Bud Holland`s case, the subsequent investigation concluded that the chain of events leading to the crash was primarily attributable to three factors:
Holland’s personality and behavior, USAF leaders’ delayed or inadequate reactions to earlier incidents involving Holland, and the sequence of events during the aircraft’s final flight.
The crash, since has been used in military and civilian aviation environments as a case study in teaching crew resource management. It is also often used by the US armed forces during aviation safety training as an example of the importance of compliance with safety regulations and correcting the behaviour of anyone who violates safety procedures.

Gouli says:
"One of the areas addressed in the report was what degree of sanctions were applied to display pilots who breached the safety rules. It seems that a quiet word in the bar or via telephone after the display was concluded was deemed sufficient in most cases."

So, is just a quiet word in the bar or over the phone a remedy or a placebo.

9 lives

8th Jun 2017, 11:58

I am aware that air accident investigators will include consideration of the pilot's demonstration of skill, precision and discipline relative to the flying task involved. Those three personal characteristics may be an indicator of the person's attitude, or may just be a demonstration of the limits of their capability. I've known pilots who flew with great precision, though were "mechanical" and did not handle the aircraft well (display with ease). I've known excellent "hands and feet" pilots, who displayed wonderfully, but were not inclined toward precision. Airshow display pilots require an extra measure of both characteristics.

My opinion of the Shoreham accident, based upon the video I saw, and the authoritative information I have seen suggests a pilot who did not apply the required precision and discipline, and when the aircraft was not where it needed to be, he did not attempt to escape, but rather continued. My opinion of the video of the Jet Provost airshow display linked earlier is that the pilot was not positioning the aircraft precisely relative to the show line. If that video was recorded by a person who was located behind the crowd line, the flying was worrisome in terms of compliance.

In my time, I've had to say to a few pilots: "You're a nice fellow, but the skill/precision/discipline you've demonstrated was not adequate for the flying task here.". I believe, from a number of discussions I've had with accident investigators about accidents I've known, that they will at least consider these foregoing pilot personality factors too as possible factors in an accident.

Like the condition of the aircraft, the pilot's medical condition, and the weather, information understood about the skill, precision and discipline of the pilot's flying in that realm, may also be a factor in an accident.

wiggy

8th Jun 2017, 12:10

If we are going to persue the "rogue pilot" theory and and start looking at "personal characteristics" it's perhaps worth bearing in mind in that every sector AH flew as part of his day job would have been run through the company monitoring monitoring system, which is actively scans for breaches of SOPs, "gate" busting etc.......

9 lives

8th Jun 2017, 13:01

flew as part of his day job would have been run through the company monitoring system, which is actively scans for breaches of SOPs, "gate" busting etc.......

This was a factor in a fatal accident of a pilot I had trained for a contract. He flew very well when monitored (operator on board at all times). The very first flight he flew solo, to bring the plane back to me at the end of that project, he decided to flew as he wanted, and literally killed himself with carelessness within ten minutes of taking off. No one minded his choosing to deviate from the norm a little while solo, but everyone was totally unhappy about the fatal outcome.

I have noticed that pilots who fly "supervised" may explore extra freedom when flying in a different (or differently/not supervised) operation.

wiggy

8th Jun 2017, 13:03

Fair point, I've seen similar in a military context.

Direct Bondi

8th Jun 2017, 20:59

The CAA did not ensure it closed a very large hole in the Swiss cheese.

After witnessing the display at Southport the CAA had evidence to suspend or revoke the pilots display authorization. At minimum, had the CAA issued a formal notice of regulatory non-compliance, the pilot may have applied an increased margin of safety (height and distance) to ensure regulatory compliance at subsequent displays.

Some may argue the CAA did not fulfill its duty of care and duty of competence.

The AAIB report neither includes the prior history of illegal maneuvers nor identifies the CAA missed opportunity for more affirmative action to prevent any reoccurrence. Some chump said this was omitted from the report as not relevant. I say it is omitted as convenient.

The Coroner will be made aware of facts regarding CAA misguided priorities and resources involving medical department witch-hunts (proven to be groundless) in the weeks before this accident. Had the CAA applied the same resources and intensity to investigating the non-compliant Southport display, the Shoreham tragedy may have been prevented.

CAA observed Southport display:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHngQ8TmqU4

The Telegraph article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/12136785/Shoreham-crash-pilot-Andy-Hill-was-involved-in-another-air-incident-a-year-earlier.html

Hebog

12th Jun 2017, 14:43

Lots of people/organisations failed in their duty of care.

Maintenance companies - for lying that the aircraft was airworthy and meet CAA requirements for the renewal of its permit.

CAA - for allowing the maintenance companies to self-certify that they have cried out work and that the aircraft meets CAA requirements. Accepting flight tests that were not carried out. Allowing airshows to be conducted without sufficient regulation and inspection.

Airshow Organisers - for not having full risk assessments and policies in place regarding planned displays.

Pilot - for not providing the airshow a flight plan (even though they had not requested one). Not performing a flight briefing with the FDD or the other pilot/ or another competent display pilot.

I too agree there appears to be some things missed or not covered/mentioned in the AAIB report, but it is objective as to whether these are deemed relevant as it may be to some parties but not to others. The coroners investigation will again not be apportion blame but to establish who, when and why the person/s died. It will be upto the police/CPS to deem if any crime has been committed and if it is in the public interest to prosecute.

Super VC-10

12th Jun 2017, 17:25

My gut feeling is that a prosecution is dependent upon what verdict the inquest returns. If a verdict of unlawful killing is returned, then you can almost guarantee a prosecution will follow. Misadventure or open verdict and it will be less likely. Accidental death and there won't be a prosecution.

Chronus

12th Jun 2017, 19:23

I think misadventure and open verdict can be ruled out. Unlawful killing or accidental death are the two to choose from. It is clear that the primary cause was pilot error. The question remaining is was it recklessness or negligence and if it was negligence was it criminal neglect. Was it dangerous flying.

Tay Cough

12th Jun 2017, 21:39

It is clear that the primary cause was pilot error...

To whom? Apart from you of course.

The question remaining is was it recklessness or negligence and if it was negligence was it criminal neglect.

Recklessness, negligence or some other circumstance beyond the control of the pilot.

jindabyne

13th Jun 2017, 08:30

And to all of the previously experienced Hunter pilots that I have spoken with.

overstress

14th Jun 2017, 17:34

Chronus, jindabyne, Step Turn, look again at Tay Cough's posting above: some other circumstance beyond the control of the pilot.

Now look at section 1.18.3.4 of the full AAIB report. Why would the pilot have deliberately entered the manoeuvre slow, with less than full power, and reduced the power setting before making random changes to it?

If you are confident the pilot could not have been suffering some kind of transient health problem, then carry on blaming him.

Extract from 1.18.3.4

The rpm at pull up (derived from the spectrum analysis of
the action camera audio) was 7,530 audio, which reduced
to less than 6,800 audio, possibly as low as 6,500 audio
during the upward half of the manoeuvre and was increased
transiently to 7,210 audio. It was 7,010 audio at the apex.
This was contrary to the pilot’s declared nominal power
setting of increasing to full power at or shortly after the
pull-up. The throttle was not visible on the video and so it is
not possible to confirm whether the rpms were pilot selected
or due to an engine malfunction.

Heathrow Harry

14th Jun 2017, 17:43

Regretfully totally well and sane pilots regulary do soemthing stupid or ill advised - teh accident reports are littered with them

He made a mistake - which , in this case led to appalling consequences

I can't see how you can stick unlawfull killing on him but negligence certainly - not enough of a lawyer to understand the difference between criminal negligence and the common-or garden variety

RAT 5

15th Jun 2017, 08:02

Just a thought about the comments here, reference human performance being affected, detrimentally, and apparent thrust changes during the vertical: from all reports mentioned the start of the manoeuvre was too low, too slow & off line. Here was a 'root cause moment'. Is anyone saying that there were medical human factors that caused these 2 parameters to be less than approved & necessary?

Hebog

15th Jun 2017, 12:48

Regretfully totally well and sane pilots regulary do soemthing stupid or ill advised - teh accident reports are littered with them

Yes and the accident reports are also littered with maintenance errors by seemingly qualified persons too.

Unfortunately, it would appear that there were many stupid/ill advised actions in regards to this from seemingly well-qualified and experienced people - from the DA authorisation, the permit renewal, lack of risk assessments, possible engine issues previously etc

Heathrow Harry

16th Jun 2017, 14:53

PIC - Pilot in Command -says it all really

LookingForAJob

16th Jun 2017, 17:06

My gut feeling is that a prosecution is dependent upon what verdict the inquest returns. If a verdict of unlawful killing is returned, then you can almost guarantee a prosecution will follow.Of whom? Just the pilot? What about the other people who failed to do their part to assure the safety of the flight/display?

G0ULI

16th Jun 2017, 17:26

The incident involved an aircraft that crashed outside the airfield boundary and outside the display area. The AAIB report has eliminated the possibility of any major fault in the aircraft as being responsible for the crash. Some pedants might argue otherwise, but essentially the aircraft was airworthy. That places the blame firmly upon the pilot. That will inevitably have to be the finding of the inquest and any further proceedings will carry on from there.

Various shortcomings have been discovered during the course of the AAIB investigation concerning safety procedures, but even if these had all been ccorrectly followed, it would not have altered the outcome of this specific incident. The organisers of a display have a responsibilty to try and ensure the safety of spectators at the display. They cannot be expected to take responsibility for unforseeable events that take place outside the display area.

Chronus

16th Jun 2017, 19:39

In considering the position of the organisers and the CAA, I would pose the following question. Would the outcome been different had another pilot of similar experience and qualifications been in command on that day.

MacLaren1

16th Jun 2017, 20:12

Oh, dear...

Pozidrive

16th Jun 2017, 20:41

Maoraigh1

16th Jun 2017, 21:21

Do they not have a greater responsibility to members of the public who have not chosen to attend their event? Travelers on a public road.

Pozidrive

16th Jun 2017, 21:35

Don't know about greater, certainly an equal responsibility.

Chuck Glider

17th Jun 2017, 07:11

Do they not have a greater responsibility to members of the public who have not chosen to attend their event? Travelers on a public road.
Where do you draw the line? Within some notional distance from the airshow boundary/datum the airshow has some level of responsibility, outwith, they don't? How do you control/police/enforce excursions from the 'box'? If the box is deemed limitless then air displays in the UK are history.

It seems to me that at some point responsibility for what ensues is handed to/assumed by the pilot and in a fast moving situation that responsibility for the outcome becomes absolute.

donotdespisethesnake

17th Jun 2017, 12:23

Health and Safety regulations are not restricted to people directly involved to an event or site, responsibility applies to people in the surrounding area. This is why those running the fireworks event associated with the M5 crash were brought to trial for HS breaches, although the case was thrown out due lack of evidence.
In principle of law, event organisers could be held responsible for what happens to people outside the designated display area. Guilt would hinge on whether risk could be "reasonably expected".

Basil

17th Jun 2017, 23:00

Caveat: I have only flown aeros in JP, Chip, Jungmann and NEVER LL.
When this thread started I had the feeling that the FJ frat was closing ranks to protect one of their own but, in deference to those who'd flown LL aeros in FJs, I kept my counsel.
I now have to say that I think that entering a manoeuvre too low, too slow and climbing to the 'start point' was not a great idea, in fact a very basic error.
How could . . . . etc.
Probably there but for the grace etc.

Capt Scribble

18th Jun 2017, 01:14

You are about correct there Basil. There are 'gates' set for aerobatics and you must respect them, but humans always think that they can do that little bit better and beat the laws of physics. It sometimes works but not always. People gamble in Las Vegas thinking that they can beat the bank, occasionally they do, but not very often.

Direct Bondi

18th Jun 2017, 10:05

Various shortcomings have been discovered during the course of the AAIB investigation concerning safety procedures, but even if these had all been correctly followed, it would not have altered the outcome of this specific incident.How can you be sure of that?

Page 25 of the Shoreham Special Bulletin (Link below) states:

"In 2014 a display by the pilot of G-BXFI, in another aircraft type and at a different venue, was stopped by the FDD of that display following concerns about the execution of a maneuver.
A CAA Flight Standards Officer (FSO) was present but did not witness the occurrence.
Following an informal discussion with the pilot later that day the CAA took no further action and did not formally record the occurrence.
The occurrence was not otherwise investigated and was not reported to the AAIB.
It may not have been apparent to those involved that the duty to report could apply to such occurrences at flying displays or they may have concluded that this occurrence was not reportable.
Nevertheless, the occurrence could have provided an opportunity to explore the pilot’s continued competence"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/56e178f240f0b6037900001b/S1-2016_G-BXFI.pdf

The CAA do not have to "witness" any event to take action. Notwithstanding, a YouTube video is available of the display:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHngQ8TmqU4

Revocation/suspension of display permit pending assessment, or at minimum, an official letter of warning/caution may have indeed prevented the Shoreham tragedy.

The CAA had the first opportunity to take preventative action, but failed in its duty of care and duty of competence.

Chronus

18th Jun 2017, 17:57

What ! "fly better next time ". That`s one hell of a lesson, eleven dead, sixteen injured and a lesson learned to fly better next time and not to do it again.
Why because on that and a previous occasion did not demonstrate more precise skill. That which is a must is judgement, that`s number one. Skill is built on a solid foundation of judgement.

So is Step Turn actually saying it is his hope that once this pilot recovers from amnesia,he will go over all that he did wrong and get back on the display circus and live happily thereafter. I`d be interested to know if he has his day job back.

Heathrow Harry

18th Jun 2017, 17:59

Let's not get too personal please

M.Mouse

18th Jun 2017, 18:13

So is Step Turn actually saying it is his hope that once this pilot recovers from amnesia,he will go over all that he did wrong and get back on the display circus and live happily thereafter. I`d be interested to know if he has his day job back.

He already decided to retire from BA prior to the accident so there is no 'day job'.

The comments above imply that AH was some kind of maverick, he was not. Those of us that know him were shocked that he was the pilot in this dreadful tragedy.

Personally I doubt that he will ever fly again.

If Chronus seriously believes the amnesia is fake, which is implied in his snide statement, then it says more about him than AH.

QDM360

18th Jun 2017, 19:18

The CAA do not have to "witness" any event to take action. Notwithstanding, a YouTube video is available of the display:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHngQ8TmqU4

This, however, is not the footage of the flight mentioned in the report. It's the display of Sunday, September 21st, 2014 - whereas the flight mentioned in the report refered to the display on Saturday, September 20th:
Shoreham crash pilot Andy Hill 'was involved in another air incident a year earlier' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/12136785/Shoreham-crash-pilot-Andy-Hill-was-involved-in-another-air-incident-a-year-earlier.html)
"During the display by a Jet Provost T5 at the Southport Airshow on 20 September 2014, the aircraft was observed to be inside the lateral separation minima for the event and also below the minimum height stipulated in the Article 162 Permission issued by the CAA. "A 'stop' call was immediately issued by the Flying Display Director (FDD) on the display radio frequency and the flying display was terminated.
This video shows the display of Saturday, September 20th - and likely the maneuver which triggered the FDD to call "stop":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwhLSHpeiE8

Chuck Glider

19th Jun 2017, 08:44

Perhaps I left too much room for interpretation in what I wrote....
Your post was perfectly clear in that you were referring to the Jet Provost display not the Hawker Hunter display. And what's not to agree with this?
I would have hoped that he would have examined his own performance, and committed to himself to fly better next time.

Direct Bondi

19th Jun 2017, 14:12

The CAA publications below were applicable in 2015. Both publications have since been amended and new editions published.

CAP 1047 - Civil Air Displays, A Guide for Pilots:

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1047%20Civil%20Air%20Displays%20A%20guide%20for%20pilots. pdf

CAP 403 - Flying Displays and Special Events: A Guide to Safety and Administrative Arrangements:

http://www.acro.co.uk/files/CAP403.pdf

Chapter 6 - Pilot Display Competency
2.4.6. DAEs [Display Authorization Evaluators] should actively monitor Display Pilot standards throughout the display season.

8.6 Minimum Heights During Displays
8.6.1 - All aerobatic maneuvers, including inverted flypasts and maneuvers which involve pulling through the vertical are to be executed above the approved aerobatic display height.

Pozidrive

19th Jun 2017, 16:28

http://www.acro.co.uk/files/CAP403.pdf

Chapter 6 - Pilot Display Competency
2.4.6. DAEs [Display Authorization Evaluators] should actively monitor Display Pilot standards throughout the display season.

Doesn't say much about actions following any lapses or violations. Basically "..at the discretion of the DAE.." So no formal system of reporting and reviewing?

The Nip

20th Jun 2017, 14:48

Is this investigation so complex that it is taking so long? Or was it to be expected it would take this long?

With the current climate of people wanting answers quickly, is this one taking rather too long?

Pozidrive

20th Jun 2017, 15:40

The investigation is complete.

It's now going down the legal route of Coroner's inquest, criminal charges and trials may follow that. This always does take a long time - possibly a couple of years.

Super VC-10

20th Jun 2017, 15:53

File being prepared for CPS. I'm taking that to mean that there will be charges.

Shoreham air disaster police probe '95% complete' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-40342625)

Direct Bondi

20th Jun 2017, 15:54

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/births-marriages-and-deaths/deaths/shoreham-airshow-inquest/hearing-dates/

https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/births-marriages-and-deaths/deaths/shoreham-airshow-inquest/inquests-to-be-held/

The Nip

20th Jun 2017, 16:36

Pozidrive, Super VC,

Thank you.

Airbanda

20th Jun 2017, 17:35

File being prepared for CPS. I'm taking that to mean that there will be charges.

Not certain there will be charges; CPS's job is to decide.

DaveReidUK

20th Jun 2017, 17:59

Reportedy 25,000 documents assembled by the police, plus several hundred witness statements.

I'd be very surprised it if doesn't go to trial.

Chronus

20th Jun 2017, 19:48

Me too Dave. The difficult thing to speculate is who and on what charges, endangerment or criminal negligence.

Trim Stab

21st Jun 2017, 10:52

Not certain there will be charges; CPS's job is to decide.

Correct. But for CPS to decide against the police recommendation there has to be good reason. Such reasons could be that prosecution would not be in public interest, or that the accused is unfit to stand trial, or that although a crime had been committed a jury would be unlikely to deliver a guilty verdict.

Hebog

21st Jun 2017, 12:46

25k documents that is a lot for the CPS to wade through and also if brought to trial, a lot for the defendants team too.

There are things in the report that seem to contradict themselves.
Such as 'the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilots input' yet later on they state they can't see the pilots input with regard to the variations on the engine. Also,if the G meter wasn't working could the aircraft pulled more than the 3G it was restricted to. How did they test all the aircraft systems/structure as with all the damage incurred and would it be easy to find pre-accident problems among that lot.

Heathrow Harry

21st Jun 2017, 13:59

Lot of people dead, lot of people involved and quite a lot of blame likely to be spread over numerous individuals and organisations going back a few years

All will have lawyers and "the right to reply and comment"

G0ULI

21st Jun 2017, 14:13

Hebog

The AAIB report is a distilled compilation of many reports from many authors, with information from multiple sources, that is why there are apparent discrepancies in different parts of the report when taken in isolation.

The general gist of the report is that there were no major faults with the aircraft that could have caused the accident, the aircraft appeared to respond as expected to control inputs that were directly visible inside and outside the aircraft, and that the subsequent crash was down to a failure to initiate a recovery manoeuvre coming off the top of the final loop.

Naturally the AAIB do not put it as bluntly as that because it is neither their job nor responsibility to assign blame, merely to establish the circumstances that gave rise to the crash in the interest of preventing another similar incident.

While we may have every sympathy with the victims of this incident, including the pilot, who was also equally a victim, only one of the victims can be considered to carry sole responsibility for what happened.

There will be extensive legal arguments over the precise sequence of events and where blame might lie, but from the details already published there is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn, pilot error.

Pozidrive

21st Jun 2017, 17:24

...but from the details already published there is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn, pilot error.

There isn't a criminal offence called "pilot error". The AAIB found a number of failings by other people and organisations. There could be enough evidence to charge some of these, subject to the CPS public interest etc, tests described above.

Who is charged and what they're charged with will be influenced by the Coroner's verdict.

DaveReidUK

21st Jun 2017, 17:35

No, it won't.

There won't be any coroner's verdict for at least another year, the inquest isn't due to proceed until September 2018.

donotdespisethesnake

21st Jun 2017, 18:06

I would expect charges to be brought under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Even if it is judged that the display pilot made a handling error, it could be judged that the display organisers did not consult sufficiently with the display pilot about the exact details of his routine, and whether a risk assessment was properly done, including what risks may be incurred, and how they could be mitigated.

Chronus

21st Jun 2017, 19:07

At the second pre inquest review hearing on 20 June, the coroner set the date of the third pre inquest review for 24 January 2018 and indicated she would like the full hearing to commence in September 2018. She did also say that the inquest may be suspended if the police decide to bring criminal charges.
She also said to the families of the victims:
"I want to assure you I am satisfied that they are moving forward as quickly as they can in quite difficult circumstances and they are hoping to bring their investigation to a conclusion as quickly as possible."
According to press reports ( The Argus )Rebecca Smith an aviation lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, representing some of the families of the victims said " the crash was a disaster waiting to happen and one that appears could have been avoided."
Reading between the lines from all the above, it would seem to me that criminal charges are in store. It is just a matter of what the remaining 5% of the police investigation represents. My guess would be that it is some sort of evidence which is either to be yet obtained or considered before that too is submitted to the CPS. The chances are that the police and the CPS will wish to avoid the second anniversary passing without any apparent action with continuing uncertainty and lack of justice. Who was it that said
" justice must be swift, sure and must be seen to be done, or it`s not done at all ".

Lonewolf_50

21st Jun 2017, 19:20

Who was it that said " justice must be swift, sure and must be seen to be done, or it`s not done at all." Judge Lynch, for one. :p

Pozidrive

21st Jun 2017, 22:37

...an aviation lawyer with Irwin Mitchell, representing some of the families of the victims said " the crash was a disaster waiting to happen and one that appears could have been avoided."...

I don't think anyone can disagree with that?

DaveReidUK

22nd Jun 2017, 08:04

Who was it that said "justice must be swift, sure and must be seen to be done, or it`s not done at all".

Nick Herbert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Herbert), in the preamble to the 2012 White Paper on proposed reforms to the CJS (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217328/swift-and-sure-justice.pdf).

Legalapproach

22nd Jun 2017, 18:43

"Justice should be swift"
So far the authorities have spent the best part of two years considering the available evidence in the case. This will not have been released to the lawyers who represent anybody who ends up being accused/charged. Let us hope that those representatives have an adequate if not similar period to consider such evidence and prepare their case.

Legalapproach

22nd Jun 2017, 18:47

Lonewolf 50

Judge Lynch has said many things but I don't think she said that:ok:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/judge-patricia-lynch-qc-you-re-a-bit-of-a-ct-yourself-swearing-judge-britains-sweariest-judge-a7185526.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/judge-patricia-lynch-qc-you-re-a-bit-of-a-ct-yourself-swearing-judge-britains-sweariest-judge-a7185526.html")

daved123

22nd Jun 2017, 20:01

Lonewolf50 may be referring to Charles Lynch, mid18thC, Virginia, lynch law / lynching / judge Lynch attributed to him (quick Wiki research)

DaveReidUK

22nd Jun 2017, 20:29

Are you suggesting that any parties who might be prosecuted are not already aware of what happened, what they did/didn't do and what their duty of care to the public was ?

I can't see any evidence that the prosecution is likely to disclose coming as a surprise to any defendant(s).

Dr Jekyll

22nd Jun 2017, 20:37

They might not be aware of what they are accused of so have a right to prepare a defence just as with any other prosecution.

DaveReidUK

22nd Jun 2017, 21:42

Yes, that's how it works.

Of course no party has been charged with anything yet, but it seems likely (as previously referred to) that the situation will change between now and the second anniversary of the crash in August.

Time to prepare a defence is unlikely to be an issue - Crown Courts currently have such a huge backlog that a trial probably wouldn't start until 2018.

Lonewolf_50

23rd Jun 2017, 00:51

Lonewolf50 may be referring to Charles Lynch, mid18thC, Virginia, lynch law / lynching / judge Lynch attributed to him (quick Wiki research)
Give that nice man a cigar. :ok:

Legalapproach

23rd Jun 2017, 06:38

DaveReidUK

Someone has previously mentioned the police having something like 25,000 pages of material. It all has to be looked at by the defence whether it eventually takes them by surprise or not.
Using an average of 2 minutes per page (the figure that used to be accepted to read straightforward criminal trial statements and bearing in mind much of it here may be technical) = 50,000 minutes or 833.33 hours or 104 eight hour days (assuming that you read constantly for the 8 hours) or 21 working weeks. In reality, if the 25,000 figure is anywhere near correct it will take several months just to go through the prosecution material and that's before you factor in defence evidence, experts etc.

Basil

23rd Jun 2017, 11:24

Re #841 #842
I'm sure the Judges Lynch must be related ;)

Direct Bondi

23rd Jun 2017, 14:26

Meanwhile, the civil claims 3-year statute of limitations clock has been running.

CAA
The pilot
Owner of the aircraft
Owner/operator of the airfield

Pozidrive

23rd Jun 2017, 15:19

The name of a specialist personal injury firm has already appeared somewhere. Civil claims may well be in preparation already.

You could add aircraft maintainers to the list, and airshow organiser if this was not the airfield operator.

G0ULI

23rd Jun 2017, 19:22

Direct Bondi

A legal notice of a claim must be issued within three years of the incident. There is no limit on how long it may take for a claim to be settled once that initial notice has been given. While the courts are sensitive to victim's needs and may order interim payments to cover medical costs and other necessities, the final reckoning of accounts can take many years, especially if the prognosis for a victim changes in light of medical advances, or alternatively deteriorates. Been there, done that, the payments to victims are not exceedingly generous, but the legal profession make a killing! :ugh:

Chronus

23rd Jun 2017, 19:27

Civil claims ?

Have a look at the following news report:
Shoreham air crash families get compensation - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-37121498)

The civil claim aspects may have all been done and dusted by now.

Criminal offences are not about monetary compensation, these are entirely a different ball game played in a different field, namely the criminal courts and not the local county court or the chancery division of the high court. The chaps in wigs are all from the criminal bar.
So we are currently contemplating whether or not the CAA, the organisers, the aircraft owner and the pilot, or any combination/ permutation thereof, are about to be brought to face criminal charges,and the prospect of doing time in one of her majesty`s prisons and some fines if they are convicted of the lesser offences. If convicted on the more serious offence of manslaughter/gross negligence, then it is lots of porridge. Plenty of plea bargaining before it gets to the Old Bailey, if it is to go in that direction of course. But if it ever comes to pass, then it will be a trial of some proportions. Look how long the French took over Concorde and the Mulhouse -Habsehim Airbus crashes.
Over here in the UK of late we had the case of the Red Arrows crash and the tragic death of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham, the CPS decision is at :
CPS decision on the death of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham (http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_decision_on_the_death_of_flight_lieutenant_sean_cunningh am/)
So I think it will be a first for the UK if it goes to trial.

Pozidrive

24th Jun 2017, 12:46

...Over here in the UK of late we had the case of the Red Arrows crash and the tragic death of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham, the CPS decision is at :
CPS decision on the death of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham (http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_decision_on_the_death_of_flight_lieutenant_sean_cunningh am/)

So I think it will be a first for the UK if it goes to trial.

Surely not a "first for the UK", can you explain what you mean there?

Chronus

24th Jun 2017, 19:00

Legalapproach

24th Jun 2017, 19:16

There have been two cases that I can recall, G-STYX and the Dorset Tiger Moth crash.

Chronus

24th Jun 2017, 19:24

Thanks Legal Approach, however the microlight inspector`s case did not go to trial. I don`t know the outcome of the Tiger Moth case. Did that ever go to trial.

Legalapproach

24th Jun 2017, 19:36

The inspector's case did not go to a jury but only because the defendant's lawyers successfully argued that it should be halted on medical grounds. The Tiger Moth pilot was prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter and was found not guilty by a jury.

Basil

25th Jun 2017, 10:15

In 1991 Captain Glen Stewart was convicted of negligently endangering his aircraft and fined.
The gentleman subsequently took his own life.

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1991/1991%20-%201236.PDF
Pilot in near miss found dead in car | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pilot-in-near-miss-found-dead-in-car-1561147.html)

Pozidrive

25th Jun 2017, 11:27

Yes Pozidrive.

This is a subject of some current interest, it is referred to under the heading of Criminalisation of Air Accidents.
As far as I know there has not been any cases in the UK involving manslaughter or gross negligence in air accidents. That is the reason for my remark. If you or anyone else knows of any such case I would be interested to hear about it.

OK, understood, I was taking a wider view. There have been a number of recent manslaughter trials following fatalities. The first one that comes to mind was the crash of a badly maintained tipper truck in Somerset - result was two manslaughter convictions.

Any reason why air accidents shouldn't be criminalised, if there's evidence laws have been broken?

DaveReidUK

25th Jun 2017, 12:37

Any reason why air accidents shouldn't be criminalised, if there's evidence laws have been broken?

None at all. A prosecution of a pilot/engineer/inspector/etc would be subject to exactly the same tests by the CPS as any other criminal prosecution: is there a reasonable probability of a conviction and is the prosecution in the public interest?

Incidentally, the defence in both of the two aforementioned cases (albeit one of them didn't get to court) involved challenging the findings of the respective AAIB investigations.

Chronus

25th Jun 2017, 19:19

Legal Approach mentioned the Tiger Moth crash. This would seem to be the only UK case where a manslaughter and endangering the safety of an aircraft charges were brought against a pilot. In this instance the jury at the Crown Court acquitted the pilot on both charges. Having regard to this case, perhaps this adds some weight to the considerations of the CPS.

4468

25th Jun 2017, 20:31

Chronus

I posted details of another. A helicopter crash from 1990. It seems to have been moderated, though I have absolutely no idea why, as it is a matter of public record.

There is an AAIB report.

I have no idea why I am not allowed to refer to it?

But you are wrong in your assertion.

DaveReidUK

25th Jun 2017, 22:20

I posted details of another. A helicopter crash from 1990. It seems to have been moderated, though I have absolutely no idea why, as it is a matter of public record.

The March 2000 helicopter crash at Twyford, Berks, also resulted in the trial of an engineer for manslaughter. The jury found him not guilty.

MacLaren1

26th Jun 2017, 16:52

A friend (and former fixed wing syndicate partner) declined a seat on this flight due to another appointment. Two seats were taken up by others, who tragically perished.

There but for the grace of God, etc...

Chronus

26th Jun 2017, 18:55

With the chopper crash mentioned by Dave Reid, that now makes two attempts at manslaughter charges in both of which the CPS failed to secure a conviction. Here is an extract from the CPS The Code for Crown Prosecutors:
"The Decision Whether to Prosecute
4.5 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the
prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of
any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on
which he or she might rely."

In both the Tiger Moth and the chopper cases they must have thought that there was a realistic prospect of conviction. But the expected was not the outcome . Will they now try for a third.

H Peacock

26th Jun 2017, 19:47

The cases mentioned may well not have resulted in a guilty verdict, but that certainly doesn't mean that the individuals concerned were innocent. If you're in the aviation business and read the relevant reports you can undoubtably form your own conclusion.
Have we yet mentioned the South Cerney Herc? I gather the jury were swung by the u/s rad alt. Hard to explain to Joe public that the instrument that tells you your height above the ground was not particularly important on that day!!!

4468

26th Jun 2017, 19:52

Pozidrive

27th Jun 2017, 11:13

With the chopper crash mentioned by Dave Reid, that now makes two attempts at manslaughter charges in both of which the CPS failed to secure a conviction..

Wasn't there another case involving a hunt saboteur and a microlight?

Pozidrive

27th Jun 2017, 11:17

The cases mentioned may well not have resulted in a guilty verdict, but that certainly doesn't mean that the individuals concerned were innocent...

In the UK "not guilty" means innocent of the charge, doesn't it?

Herod

27th Jun 2017, 11:19

Posidrive. As far as I'm aware, that is the case in England. Scotland has an additional verdict of "not proven". It doesn't mean you're innocent, but they cannot secure a guilty verdict.

treadigraph

27th Jun 2017, 12:02

Wasn't there another case involving a hunt saboteur and a microlight.

Gyroplane - hunt saboteur tried for murder but found not guilty by the jury.

DANbudgieman

27th Jun 2017, 12:04

Posidrive. As far as I'm aware, that is the case in England. Scotland has an additional verdict of "not proven". It doesn't mean you're innocent, but they cannot secure a guilty verdict.

Wrong!

In Scottish law there is strictly no distinction between a not guilty and not proven verdict. The reason for this oddity is historic and beyond the scope of this forum.

The "not proven" verdict is however widely mis-understood (in Scotland) by the general public as being that the accused was guilty, but got away with their offence.

DaveReidUK

27th Jun 2017, 12:50

Gyroplane - hunt saboteur tried for murder but found not guilty by the jury.

He was initially arrested on suspicion of murder, but was tried and acquitted on a charge of manslaughter.

donotdespisethesnake

27th Jun 2017, 12:55

In the UK "not guilty" means innocent of the charge, doesn't it?

No, generally it means "not proved beyond reasonable doubt of guilt", although there are other grounds for acquittal. The defendant's status is the same as what it was pre-trial - "presumed innocent". Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a person can be retried for the same crime under certain conditions.

In some jurisdictions (e. Italy), a defendant can be acquitted with a verdict that is equivalent to "innocent", e.g the court found that someone else committed the crime, but there is no equivalent in the UK (including Scotland).

Basil

27th Jun 2017, 13:03

Wrong!

In Scottish law there is strictly no distinction between a not guilty and not proven verdict. The reason for this oddity is historic and beyond the scope of this forum.

The "not proven" verdict is however widely mis-understood (in Scotland) by the general public as being that the accused was guilty, but got away with their offence.
Indeed; widely considered, in Scotland, to mean: 'Not guilty - aye, right!'

Pozidrive

27th Jun 2017, 14:01

Posidrive. As far as I'm aware, that is the case in England. Scotland has an additional verdict of "not proven". It doesn't mean you're innocent, but they cannot secure a guilty verdict.

Thank you, I should have said England and Wales instead of UK. I was aware that NI law is slightly different and Scottish law very different.

Chronus

27th Jun 2017, 18:36

Chronus

You aren't listening to me. I posted details of a fatal helicopter crash, after which the pilot went to prison for 18 months. Nothing whatsoever to do with Dave Reid's contribution.

Your assertion/assumption is wrong. Maybe you have an agenda/vested interest?

I have no view whatsoever on Shoreham.

Maybe I will be moderated again. I have no idea what the problem was first time round!

I have got the intercom on full volume listening intently with agenda on my knee board, yet cannot detect any noises about a UK conviction with 18 months porridge diet for a chopper pilot. Perhaps double four six eight could give us some victor vectors. Would suggest standard RT phraseology best for his tx, might avoid getting it jammed again.

4468

27th Jun 2017, 19:07

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/home/02aug91-uk-jcb-chairman-gives-evidence-in-customers-helicopter-death-crash-case/1706384.article

Chronus

27th Jun 2017, 19:38

Thank you 4468. That piece of news would seem to improve the betting odds for the CPS.

4468

27th Jun 2017, 21:18

No worries.

Just to be totally clear. I met the pilot in the helicopter accident I referred to. Shortly before his accident. Coincidentally, I also know the Shoreham pilot. I am absolutely not wishing to connect the two incidents in any way.

I have no doubt whatsoever, I am not informing the CPS of anything they were otherwise unaware of!

Nige321

6th Jul 2017, 15:51

Ban on Hunter flying lifted...

CAA linky... (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&catid=1&id=6886&mode=detail&pagetype=65)

Chronus

6th Jul 2017, 20:06

The piece that matters is :
"This action is a result of the CAA concluding there were no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident. This is based on our own extensive review and the AAIB’s final accident report."
Fairly conclusive that there was nothing wrong with the machine and all its equipment.

3wheels

6th Jul 2017, 22:21

The important words are " that caused or contributed to the accident" . Does not mean that there were no other airworthiness issues.

bvcu

7th Jul 2017, 10:39

Still needs to be put in the context of an aircraft with no FDR so no proof but old fashioned investigation gives the best possible opinion within the constaints as the report says , just to give the benefit of doubt. Be interesting after reading the report if there will be any airworthy Hunters to fly excepting the ones still operating under the military system from Scampton. Will the manufacturer supply seat cartridges now ? The engine inspection issues mean the chances of seeing an aircraft powered by a 100 series Avon is pretty remote.

Pozidrive

7th Jul 2017, 10:39

...
Fairly conclusive that there was nothing wrong with the machine and all its equipment.

Not at all, the AAIB report found a lot of things wrong with the machine and its equipment.

Super VC-10

7th Jul 2017, 10:43

Noteworthy that Hunters are to be subjected to an enhanced maintenance maintenance and inspection regime before any permit to fly is issued.

Bigpants

7th Jul 2017, 10:49

dsc810

7th Jul 2017, 12:00

Will the manufacturer supply seat cartridges now

I understood from what has been written on the web that I saw a fair while back that MB had already stated that it would no longer be supporting or supplying spares or providing replacements for time expired components for ALL of its legacy ejection seats.

Dr Jekyll

7th Jul 2017, 13:24

Chronus

7th Jul 2017, 18:52

Who would offer insurance cover for a Hawker Hunter and at what price? Might get a sensible deal for the USA but cannot see insurers being able to offer an affordable premium for a pilot to to fly in the UK.

Why ? What`s wrong with the Hawker Hunter, is it some kind of a dangerous aircraft ? The only danger it could ever have posed would have been to the enemy in combat. I think insurers may now only have concerns over who flies it, for what purpose and where.

4468

7th Jul 2017, 22:54

Chronus

Calm down.

I don't believe the a/c could ever have been insured when used against an enemy in combat? Even though this is a rumour network, please let's keep just a modicum of reality about proceedings?

Nor can I be sure the military actually 'insure' their own birds?

Privately owned combat jets used entirely for displays would very likely fall into an entirely different 'new'(ish) category? That someone would HAVE to insure?

How many Lightnings do you see displaying in the UK?

Has that been only because they couldn't find anyone to fly one?

Hebog

8th Jul 2017, 07:39

I doubt any Hunters on the civil register will meet the CAA requirements to be re-issued with a Permit. I doubt any have been stored as per the manuals or any spare engines have been stored correctly either before or after the accident. The cost of a full strip and comprehensive overhaul of the engine by Rolls Royce will be a fortune alone, let alone the cost of an airframe overhaul if you could find a maintenance company wishing to do it and their insurance company covering them to do so.

There are no seat cartridges as any in stock prior to the accident will now be out of date or at least very near to. Unless they can import them from another country but presumably these would be old Martin Baker stock which again would be out of date or if not at least very expensive.

I too am in agreement the only Hunters left flying will be those on a military contract, who are the only ones that have the experience and expertise to service the aircraft correctly and have current pilots.

As for the CAA saying 'This action is a result of the CAA concluding there were no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident' - it did contribute as if the maintenance records had not been fudged and the maintenance companies been honest about it not meeting CAA requirements for a Permit to be renewed it would not have been flying on that day. At the end of the day they have committed fraud by falsely declaring the aircraft meet the CAA requirements when it clearly didn't.

RAT 5

8th Jul 2017, 08:55

I flew in a 2 seat Hunter, 2003, at Thunder City Cape Town. The company had Buccaneers & Lightning. Are they still flying? If with public pax like me then they will have a SA transport permit. They also did displays.

Feathers McGraw

8th Jul 2017, 09:02

The Thunder City operation fell below the required standards and led to ZU-BEX crashing at a display, killing the pilot because the escape system failed. If you read the report you will see it's full of the same criticisms as the Shoreham Hunter accident report.

DaveReidUK

8th Jul 2017, 09:03

As for the CAA saying 'This action is a result of the CAA concluding there were no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident' - it did contribute as if the maintenance records had not been fudged and the maintenance companies been honest about it not meeting CAA requirements for a Permit to be renewed it would not have been flying on that day. At the end of the day they have committed fraud by falsely declaring the aircraft meet the CAA requirements when it clearly didn't.

I think you're stretching things a bit, except in the sense that almost every accident investigation could superfluously cite "the aircraft was flying and not on the ground" as a contributing factor.

What airworthiness issues do you consider to have caused or contributed to the accident ?

wiggy

8th Jul 2017, 09:57

RAT 5

As Feathers has mentioned the Thunder City operation had a very very nasty fatal accident a few years back, the report is here:

http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and%20Incidents%20Reports/8706.pdf

I think saying "the operation fell below the required standards" shows considerable restraint.

XL189

9th Jul 2017, 13:52

I understood from what has been written on the web that I saw a fair while back that MB had already stated that it would no longer be supporting or supplying spares or providing replacements for time expired components for ALL of its legacy ejection seats.

I think SES can supply cartridges for most seats:

Ejection Seat Servicing & Ejection Seat Cartridges (http://www.ses-safety.com/product-service/ejection-seats/)

Bigpants

9th Jul 2017, 15:26

Re Insurance I am ex fastjet (not Hunter), current Airbus ATPL and have owned and flown my own light aeroplane for a few years. Last year I asked my insurers to quote for a Hunter as I thought it would be fun to fly one but they said no thanks. Now that might be down to me but I suspect most underwriters would not be keen to insure anyone to fly one in the UK after Shoreham.

Has anyone else actually sought a quote?

ratpackgreenslug

9th Jul 2017, 21:38

One suspects that the insurers have finally woken up to the fact that there's something not quite kosher about some of the magnificent men in their flying machines.

Absolutely astonishing that insurance was not offered for a session of ego pumping derring-do. An inflated CV boasting fastjet and little Airbus experience perhaps no longer cuts the mustard. Maybe it never should have.

Hebog

10th Jul 2017, 08:42

bvcu

10th Jul 2017, 08:50

And a system where 'professional' pilots don't record defects anymore ? This has cropped up in more than one recent accident report , trying to save money which is not safe !

Bigpants

10th Jul 2017, 09:24

Yes, you could be correct my cv similar to Andy Hill although I had no intention of display flying a Hunter. Neither did I feel comfortable with the idea that an ex mil fast jet could be flown by a PPL on a permit to fly. The HAA might have done better had the CAA given them self administration a few years back. Hindsight etc

Sillert,V.I.

10th Jul 2017, 09:29

I think SES can supply cartridges for most seats:

Their website says that they "supply and replace original ejection seat cartridges, fully tested and certified".

This would seem to depend on their being able to source original, in-date ejection seat cartridges.

That said, someone must still be manufacturing these cartridges for as long as Hunters are being operated on behalf of the MOD.

Interesting that the prohibition on flying civil Hunters was not removed until after significant investment will be required before any of the existing fleet can regain a permit.

DaveReidUK

10th Jul 2017, 09:51

The maintenance companies contributed by stating the aircraft met CAA requirements to fly when it clearing didn't when they signed the compliance statement to the CAA. This basically states that they confirm the aircraft has meet the AAN requirements and all MPDs have been adhered to. This was obviously not the case - had they been honest and said no it doesn't as items are out of date, MPDs have not been complied with etc then the aircraft would not have been flying.

Yes, that's more or less what you said before.

But the fact that the aircraft was flying out of compliance was not judged by either the CAA or AAIB to have been a cause or contributory factor in the accident, as a number of posters have already pointed out.

Yes, if the Hunter hadn't been flying there would have been no crash, but you could equally make that comment in respect of pretty well every aircraft accident.

Parson

10th Jul 2017, 10:53

Bigpants - I don't see anything wrong with a PPL flying an ex mil fast jet on a permit. It depends what type of flying of course. Display aerobatics in a Hunter is quite different from flying say a JP (ok, maybe not THAT FAST) and doing some aerobatics at a safe height, in a safe area. Like everything else in aviation, experience and competence counts.

Your reference to PPLs implies a lower standard of flying skill to a CPL or ATPL. True on qualification maybe but a bit of a generalisation. I believe some of the most be experienced warbird pilots in the UK fly under on a PPL.

Pozidrive

10th Jul 2017, 12:41

Pozidrive

10th Jul 2017, 12:46

Why would it be any worse than before Shoreham?

Because now, the realities of operating aircraft beyond their "shelf-life" have become general knowledge?

M.Mouse

10th Jul 2017, 13:54

It appears to me that there are people/groups around with enough money to buy and operate high performance aircraft which were just not around in private hands 30 - 40 years ago.

The tragedy at Shoreham has brought an unpleasant wake up call to the regulatory authorities where regulation and enforcement has, unsurprisingly, not kept pace with the changing world.

From a link posted earlier referencing the English Electric Lightning crash in South Africa I dug out the previously unread accident report. It was quite staggering how the aircraft had been operated and maintained in what appears to have been a cavalier manner with scant regard for the regulations and little oversight by the South African authorities. The price was a crash although only one person was needlessly killed on that occasion.

Pozidrive

10th Jul 2017, 16:43

I would hope ALL lessons are being learned, causal factors or not.

PrivtPilotRadarTech

10th Jul 2017, 19:20

Bigpants - I don't see anything wrong with a PPL flying an ex mil fast jet on a permit. It depends what type of flying of course.

"A man's got to know his limitations." Unfortunately, many don't, like this guy who couldn't even get it airborne. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Sacramento_Canadair_Sabre_accident

JEM60

10th Jul 2017, 20:36

This month's Pilot magazine carries an article that reveals that for £75,000 down, and £2,500 per month one could become a part-owner and fly a Gnat in this country.

Parson

10th Jul 2017, 20:51

PrivtPilotRadarTech - of course. That is why I said experience and competence counts. You get fools in all walks of life.

etudiant

11th Jul 2017, 03:23

This month's Pilot magazine carries an article that reveals that for £75,000 down, and £2,500 per month one could become a part-owner and fly a Gnat in this country.

Even if the part owner has the basics needed to operate the Gnat, how will that person maintain the needed knowledge and skills essential for coping with mechanicals or other unexpected glitches.
Some years ago, the chairman of an air freight company and his guest were lost flying a Soko Galeb, a similar performance airplane to the Gnat, because the aircraft lost its canopy shortly after takeoff. An adequately trained pilot would have been able to maintain control, but not someone flying this jet as a hobby.
Presumably the licensing authorities see that as an acceptable risk, but perhaps they are mistaken.

JEM60

11th Jul 2017, 09:06

PRIVPILTRADRTECH.I read the report. One doesn't have to be a novice in the aircraft to make that mistake. Exactly the same thing happened at Duxford with a T.33, but without the horrible consequences of the Sabre accident. VERY experienced pilot.

Hebog

11th Jul 2017, 12:00

The "airworthiness issues" were not trivial things like burnt-out lamps as you suggest.

There were more fundamental issues discovered regarding maintenance of ageing aircraft. Issues which might not have contributed to this incident, but could have done in the future.

Is this the only aircraft, are there other aircraft with issues. Is it like the South African accident, is there a cavalier attitude to maintenance here in the UK. Surely the replacement parts in the UK are also past best too.

I know that this will not be relevant as far as the CPS, coroner and AAIB are concerned but this should be a concern to the CAA. Surely the false declarations made by several companies about the aircrafts serviceability to allow a permit to be issued should be investigated further and action taken as appropriate. Surely it would be better for them to act now rather than after an accident which is the direct result of a cavalier approach to maintenance.

Dan Winterland

11th Jul 2017, 14:35

I don't see anything wrong with a PPL flying an ex mil fast jet on a permit. It depends what type of flying of course.

There is too much to go wrong. The pilot of the crash reported below did not have the skill for what he was attempting. You can argue that the Shoreham pilot had the skill, but still - it went wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-folland-gnat-t-mk-1-g-timm

beardy

11th Jul 2017, 16:06

Dan, as you should be well aware, the type of licence does not guarantee the skill of the pilot. Gosh, there are some out there with no licence at all but who are particularly skillful, they fly in the armed services: it is the display authorisation which 'should' indicate a level of proficiency. Forget the PPL red herring.

LOMCEVAK

11th Jul 2017, 16:57

The PPL is just the licence; an appropriate rating is also required. Ex-military jets flown under CAP632 require an Aircraft Type Rating Exemption which will only be issued following a bespoke training package agreed by the CAA. That is where relevant ability and experience is determined. The display aspects are totally separate and are in accordance with CAP403. The type of licence, as has been said before, is no indicator of pure flying skills and airmanship which are the relevant aspects with respect to flying aircraft such as the Hunter.

Chronus

11th Jul 2017, 18:48

I agree with comments that the issue is not one of type of licence. It is all a matter of level of skill and experience on type. How would it be if it was a F104, honest airplane that it was, with a PPL or an ATPL strapped in it. I doubt the airplane would know the difference.

Hebog

1st Nov 2017, 10:32

As this doesn't appear to have filtered through the news channels
https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/births-marriages-and-deaths/deaths/shoreham-airshow-inquest/latest-news/

Dogma

6th Nov 2017, 19:28

Thankfully the team at Balpa took the Sussex Police and Coroner to the High Court and prevented them gaining access to the AAiB interview transcripts and evidence. This amongst other work in the defence of critical flight data has been instrumental in gaining a significant bit of case law to apply internationally

Chicago convention

Thanks Balpa

Just a Grunt

6th Nov 2017, 22:29

The judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2280.html

Interesting read.

roving

7th Nov 2017, 07:57

Clearly the legislation and the view of the Divisional Court is that the importance of maintaining confidence that the statements provided by those invited to assist the AAIB in their investigation of air accidents will be confidential outweighs any public interest that the Police may have in accessing those statements.

If the Divisional Court had granted disclosure to the Police the risk is that in future those invited to assist the AAIB would refuse to do so for fear that they may incriminate themselves.

I suspect that the Police never expected to win the point but was anxious not to be criticised for not making the application.

Ambient Sheep

7th Nov 2017, 08:02

It is indeed interesting, and seems well-argued on the two main points of Andy Hill's verbal evidence and the cockpit video. However I found the following most intriguing:

What that therefore leaves for further consideration is two requests for disclosure. The first relates to reports of test flights which were done by a specialist pilot. The second relates to engineering reports on the mechanical state of the plane.

For the reasons which are set out in the Confidential Annex to this judgment, I would refuse those requests by the Chief Constable.

What on earth is it about those two aspects that means we can't even know WHY the judge refused them? As I said, intriguing.

By the way, seems this was all back in July 2016, sixteen months ago.

roving

7th Nov 2017, 08:29

The very fact that you asked the question explains why the details were contained in a confidential annex. The information is clearly so sensitive that public disclosure of it could potentially prejudice any future proceedings.

I do not subscribe to the view that "the public" have a right to know anything and everything which may be disclosed by members of the public to Public Servants to enable them them to discharge their Statutory functions..

"Freedom of Information" applications have a proper role in ensuring that the State conducts its affairs in accordance with the law, providing the information being sought does not harm those unconnected with the State who have provided information on the understanding that it will remain confidential.

The slippery slope is that information received by a Public Servant to enable a statutory function to be discharged is available to any Public Servant for any purpose, and consequently under the pretext of a Freedom of Information application, the World at large.

Ambient Sheep

7th Nov 2017, 09:17

The very fact that you asked the question explains why the details were contained in a confidential annex. The information is clearly so sensitive that public disclosure of it could potentially prejudice any future proceedings.

Well obviously, and I'm not demanding such information be disclosed (which is the tone you seem to be taking in your reply). I fully accept, for example, that we shall never know what Andy Hill said to the AAIB and I can fully understand why. I don't have a problem with that.

I'm just naturally fascinated as to what possible reasons there could be for us not to even know WHY those test results can't be disclosed to the police. After all, it shouldn't be down to whatever the results actually were, should it? One would have thought it were down merely to the principles of the legal arguments surrounding them, as with AH's statements and the cockpit CCTV. The results of those tests in themselves shouldn't have been relevant as to the judge's decision, thus I struggle to imagine a scenario in which we can't be told the reasons why those tests weren't legally admissible.

Obviously there is such a scenario, and we must trust the judge on this, I just can't think what it might be, that's all.

DODGYOLDFART

7th Nov 2017, 09:33

My guess is there is far more here than meets the eye. No doubt the Judge is fully aware that the Sussex Police are under intense pressure from the public to bring some sort of criminal prosecution over the deaths of eleven people. Consequently he is being (possibly) over cautious in not allowing the police to gain direct access to highly sensitive information.

The various results from both of flight and engineering tests could provide significant evidence which in themselves be could be sufficient to bring a prosecution of some kind.

On balance I think the Judge did the right thing.

PDR1

7th Nov 2017, 10:58

I suspect it's much more mundane - I suspect the reason why the argument ofr exclusion is classified as well as the context of the excluded documents is probably simpluy that the argument is based on the content so seeing the argumentwould disclose enough of the content as to circumvent the exclusion.

G0ULI

7th Nov 2017, 11:32

Statements taken by Police are nearly always obtained after the interviewee has been cautioned to the effect that anything they say can be used in a court of law. Statements and other evidence obtained as part of an air accident investigation are not necessarily taken in the same manner.

There is a strict demarkation between what is obtained for the purposes of the accident investigation and what may be used in a criminal prosecution. For the purposes of preventing further accidents, pilots and others must feel free to relate their version of events without fear of prosecution. That point is covered by international law and regulations.

This can result in circumstances where certain details of the accident are known to the general public as part of an air accident report, but that the same details cannot be used or referred to in court as part of a prosecution.

There is a legal caveat that allows for such information to be released on a case by case basis if a State believes that there is an overwhelming public interest in the information being allowed to be used by a court.

Basically, the contents of cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders cannot be released and used to bring a prosecution against a pilot on their own. Nor can the contents of an air accident report be used to justify a prosecution because statements and other evidence were not obtained in accordance with the rules concerning the gathering of evidence in conducting a criminal case. Other evidence must be obtained to indicate some element of criminality or neglect in the way in which a flight was conducted.

airpolice

7th Nov 2017, 13:28

Basil

7th Nov 2017, 13:43

Cockpit camera - to carry or not to carry? Bit like a dashcam inasmuch as one may incriminate oneself.

Chris2303

7th Nov 2017, 13:59

This paragraph is at the beginning of the report on this accident.

The sentiments are enshrined in legislation

"In exercise of his powers, the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents ordered an investigation to be carried out in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 and the European Regulations EU996/2010 on the investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation. The sole objective of the investigation under these Regulations is the prevention of accidents and incidents and not the apportioning of blame or liability."

J.O.

7th Nov 2017, 14:46

Just in case there is another pilot out there, thinking they are alone.....

I don't see any good reason for the police not to have access to anything that is known about the circumstances of such a crash.

When the AAIB, using their expertise, discover that a pilot was at fault, or indeed, was not at fault, why should that be hidden from the police officers investigating an incident?

Who is going to benefit from such a cover up?

You're obviously not new here. With all of the discussion that's been had about this subject over countless PPRuNe threads, I'd suggest that nothing any of us can say would ever change your obviously pro-law enforcement view. When you approach every tragic event with the perspective that those involved must have had an ill intent, you'll never understand that in the vast majority of cases, they just didn't.

cessnapete

7th Nov 2017, 15:09

AirPolice
Your title says it all!!
As Chris2303 says, Its the law.The AAIB are there to prevent accidents and further air safety.

IcePack

7th Nov 2017, 15:38

Before I retired, I had decided that should I have an incident I would not talk to the AAIB, without an independent lawyer present. Although that would have been against my previous beliefs in aid of safety. The blame police do not understand the basics of an open culture. They would rather the odd one gets sentenced rather than the hundreds who pass on their mistakes to help someone else making the same mistake. Huge detriment to air safety.

G0ULI

7th Nov 2017, 15:56

These types of cases invariably fall into the,

"Everybody knows that...";
"Ah! But can you prove it in a court of law?"

category.

In the interest of furthering flight safety, quite frequently you can't. That is as it should be. As a previous poster has mentioned, if you are in any doubt, ensure that you have a legal representative present at any interview or discussion.

Many years ago and not in any matter relating to aviation, I embarked on what I considered to be a casual case discussion with a solicitor, only to be presented some weeks later with a verbatim transcript of the conversation and directions to certify the transcript was correct. Needless to say, there were certain comments and opinions expressed which would never have seen the light of day if I had known beforehand that a transcript would be made and produced in court. As it happens, it all worked very much to my advantage in the end.

Never take anything for granted when it comes to the law and always remember that common sense doesn't come into it.

dastocks

7th Nov 2017, 17:06

Just in case there is another pilot out there, thinking they are alone.....

I don't see any good reason for the police not to have access to anything that is known about the circumstances of such a crash.

When the AAIB, using their expertise, discover that a pilot was at fault, or indeed, was not at fault, why should that be hidden from the police officers investigating an incident?

Who is going to benefit from such a cover up?
AAIB investigations are about finding probable causes and learning lessons, not establishing blame or fault. By refusing access to certain reports the judge is probably protecting all parties from the type of scenario discussed here, where a prosecution relied on opinions from an AAIB report:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/451666-tiger-moth-crash-5.html

The law is clear: material gathered by the AAIB is for the benefit of their investigation and not for a criminal prosecution. It's down to Sussex Police to approach some/all of the same people as expert witnesses and then decide if there is enough evidence (rather than opinions) to support a prosecution case.

I recommend the recent film "Sully", which has similar themes.

pulse1

7th Nov 2017, 17:28

It might be worth pointing out here that the AAIB actually have more powers than the police to interview witnesses. I would have thought that the British justice system could only allow that as long as the evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial. For that reason the witnesses are not named.

HundredPercentPlease

7th Nov 2017, 17:38

Just in case there is another pilot out there, thinking they are alone.....

I don't see any good reason for the police not to have access to anything that is known about the circumstances of such a crash.

When the AAIB, using their expertise, discover that a pilot was at fault, or indeed, was not at fault, why should that be hidden from the police officers investigating an incident?

Who is going to benefit from such a cover up?

Oh dear.

The penalty for not talking to the AAIB is just a small fine. So if there is ANY chance that some pumped-up plod wants to make a case out of nothing (or very little), then EVERY pilot involved in a serious incident or accident will just say nothing to the AAIB (and pay the fine), to ensure the police don't start making a big deal getting all Daily Mail "someone has to PAY" - especially when they don't have the first idea about aviation and just culture.

And that is why BALPA forced this legal action - to protect flight safety.

DODGYOLDFART

7th Nov 2017, 17:50

Dan_Brown

7th Nov 2017, 18:44

GOULI

"Never take anything for granted when it comes to the law and always remember that common sense doesn't come into it."

So very true.

dastocks

7th Nov 2017, 18:52

Oh dear.
And that is why BALPA forced this legal action - to protect flight safety.
Looking at the case decision linked above I don't see that BALPA "forced" anything:
- The Chief Constable applied to the Crown Court for a disclosure order against the Secretary of State (i.e. the AAIB) to produce information they hold about the accident under PACE.
- This was withdrawn when it was pointed out that the various regulations require that such disclosure can only be ordered by the High Court.
- When the Chief Constable applied to the High Court BALPA joined the Secretary of State as the second defendant since they had an obvious interest in the case.

If anyone was doing any forcing here it was the Chief Constable?? - this is not to diminish BALPA's important role in this case.

roving

7th Nov 2017, 19:33

If anyone was doing any forcing here it was the Chief Constable.

As I suggested earlier in post #927, probably without an expectation of being successful.

It is of note that the most senior Judge in the Country, namely the Lord Chief Justice, was one of the two Judges making the decision.

paully

7th Nov 2017, 20:33

PPP I take your point 100% but do please put yourself in the position of the Chief Constable of Sussex who has the task of ascertaining how come 11 people died at an Air Display at Shoreham. Further more he has to bring to justice the perpetrator if he decides there is one.

When I first joined the Police, many decades ago now, part of our training then, was precisely what to do at the scene of an air disaster. It was made clear to us that we were there for many functions, but to assist, as far they required it, the AAIB. In fact the investigation was entirely theirs ending with their findings being the basis for the inquest.We would have been given very short shrift if we had tried to usurp their role.

The presumption being that such crashes were accidents. Nowadays the senior officers are spineless glory hunters building false promises that they will ensure someone will rot in jail etc etc...Yes indeed very Daily Mail :=

Tay Cough

7th Nov 2017, 20:53

There must not be a prosecution for prosecution’s sake. One hopes the CPS will put the Chief Constable in his place if it gets that far.

DaveReidUK

7th Nov 2017, 21:27

A prosecution will only proceed if the CPS considers that there would be a realistic chance of conviction on any charges that may be laid, and that a prosecution would be in the public interest.

That's no different from the tests applied to any criminal prosecution.

DODGYOLDFART

7th Nov 2017, 22:13

I agree absolutely. However do you just put the deaths of eleven innocent people down to a statement something like: Accidents happen it was just their bad luck to be there when it happened. Somehow I cannot believe that that will be the verdict of the Coroner.

I for one accept that there may be many causes and contributory causes of this "accident" and it will be the duty of the Coroner to establish exactly what happened, how and when. The AAIB report has already identified a number of key factors and no doubt the Coroner will want to explore these fully.

In the mean time I guess the CPS will be liaising with the Police in order to establish if there is a valid criminal case to answer.

OldLurker

7th Nov 2017, 22:28

Well, actually, yes, it was indeed their tragic bad luck that the aircraft hit the A27 as it did. If it had either undershot or overshot the road at that point, probably only the pilot would have been killed: still a tragedy, but (sadly) like many other air show crashes. Perhaps there was only about a couple of hundred metres in it, between one potential outcome and the other. If the pilot had been the only casualty, the AAIB would have investigated just the same, and hopefully lessons would have been learned just the same, but there wouldn't have been anything like the same ongoing ballyhoo, and probably not a 48-page thread here.Somehow I cannot believe that that will be the verdict of the Coroner.No, nor can I. Some things cannot be said.

Dogma

11th Nov 2017, 06:59

It was BALPA that coordinated the best legal minds and financial power of its members to defend the core principles & data in the accident investigation process. The alternative would be Pilots & their families, etc. providing a 'no comment' interview to the AAiB - it was a landmark ruling with international impact

The legal and practical assistance provided by BALPA to its full members is unparalleled anywhere else in Aviation. This extends to Pilot injuries & accidents, etc. around the world whilst on duty. In terms of experience and legal fire power in a world that wants to find the nearest 'guilty party' its second to none.

Shoreham IMO was a complete failure of the CAAs & UK obsession with light touch regulation. People & organisations don't do what you don't check.

LeadSled

11th Nov 2017, 08:00

Folks,
Dogma is correct, and the intent of Annex 13 is clear.

The BALPA intervention as an interested part was entirely proper, I would have expected no less.

The Hunter pilot on the day had no criminal intent, no "mens rea", the guilty mind, effectively a prerequisite for criminal charges. If he made a mistake, it certainly would not have been intentional, who hasn't made a mistake flying, at some time or other.

Whether we like it or not, the "default" position of police is "crime and punishment", not aviation accident prevention, the intent of Annex 13 and complimentary British and EC law in aviation.

I can think of only one loss of an aircraft at an airshow in the UK where I would agree that there were strong suggestions of reckless and negligent behavior, that was the A-26 at Biggin Hill in the 1960s.

There was one epic case in NZ, included in the precedents in this UK High Court case, the NZ police were hell bent on locking up the tec. crew and throwing away the key, after the accident that occurred during the handling of a gear problem.

Even a member of Qantas senior management appeared as a witness for the defence, such was the Qantas view of the importance of keeping accident investigation data away from criminal or civil actions.

Had the NZ police won their court action, it would have had a chilling result for any aviation accident investigation in NZ, who is going to give evidence that is going to find them in the pokey.

In Australia, despite lip service to Annex 13, and a piece of legislation that apparently enacts Annex 13 data protection as Australian law, ATSB and CASA are all too cosy, pilots are very reluctant to say anything other than the absolute "name, rank and serial number" minimum to investigators, because of the propensity for such information to "leak" and "inform" CASA parallel investigations.

I would point out that at least some of those killed or injured were parked in an area with temporary parking restrictions, erected just for the duration of the airshow. Hindsight is always 20/20 perfect vision, pity the parking restrictions were not thoroughly enforced.

Dan Winterland

11th Nov 2017, 08:01

When the AAIB, using their expertise, discover that a pilot was at fault, or indeed, was not at fault, why should that be hidden from the police officers investigating an incident?

It is not the AAIB's task to apportion blame. Their remit from Annex 13 is to discover why an accident occurred and make recommendations to prevent one happening again.

The Police have a completely different brief. As far as they are concerned, if there's a death, there's a crime to be investigated. For example, they no longer use the tern 'road traffic accident', preferring instead 'road traffic collision' as the word accident infers that no-one is to blame.

Super VC-10

11th Nov 2017, 12:34

I can think of only one loss of an aircraft at an airshow in the UK where I would agree that there were strong suggestions of reckless and negligent behavior, that was the A-26 at Biggin Hill in the 1960s.

It was a Douglas B-26 Invader N3710G, 21 September 1980.

roving

11th Nov 2017, 13:14

I think that the organisers of the display may be considered to be low hanging fruit.

But the 17-month-long AAIB inquiry also blamed organisers, and stressed the toll of the crash was only so devastating because of a lack of safety preparations to protect bystanders.

Shoreham Airshow crash: Pilot may have thought he was flying a different aircraft, investigators suggest (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/shoreham-air-show-disaster-final-report/)

Heathrow Harry

11th Nov 2017, 14:37

"The Hunter pilot on the day had no criminal intent, no "mens rea", the guilty mind, effectively a prerequisite for criminal charges. If he made a mistake, it certainly would not have been intentional, who hasn't made a mistake flying, at some time or other. "

Criminal Intent is not necessary for a charge of manslaughter - it's the "reasonable care " that is important.... as in cases when Companies are charged due to deaths and injuries in the workplace

Pilot DAR

11th Nov 2017, 15:29

stressed the toll of the crash was only so devastating because of a lack of safety preparations to protect bystanders.

Would un interested passers by on a nearby motorway be considered "bystanders"?

Are "bystanders" airshow enthusiasts, who attended the airshow? Or, more broadly, anyone on the ground?

Fortissimo

11th Nov 2017, 17:48

For those thinking about the role of the West Sussex Police, the AAIB and the local Coroner, it is worth reading what the judges actually said. The first quote relates to AAIB witness statements, the second to Coroners.
“In my view it is almost inconceivable that statements made to the AAIB could properly be the subject of an order for disclosure when the appropriate balancing exercise is done by this Court. This is for two main reasons.
First, there would be a serious and obvious "chilling effect" which would tend to deter people from answering questions by the AAIB with the candour which is necessary when accidents of this sort have to be investigated by it. This would seriously hamper future accident investigations and the protection of public safety by the learning of lessons which may help to prevent similar accidents. As is clear from the text cited earlier from Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, the EU Regulation and the 1996 Regulations, this would be contrary to one of the fundamental purposes of the regime in this area, which is carefully designed to encourage candour in the investigation of air accidents in order to learn lessons and prevent accidents in the future.
Secondly, it would be unfair to require such disclosure. This is because the powers of the AAIB, unlike the ordinary police, are such as to permit the compulsion of answers to questions: see Regulation 9 of the 1996 Regulations. Further, so far as I could discern from the hearing before this Court, there is no clear practice, to say the least, of giving a caution to the person interviewed. This is hardly surprising, since the purpose of such an interview is to obtain the fullest possible information in an accident investigation. This contrasts markedly with the purpose of a police interview, which is to elicit evidence which may be capable of being used at a subsequent criminal trial.”

And:

“In the absence of credible evidence that the investigation into an accident is incomplete, flawed or deficient, a Coroner conducting an inquest into a death which occurred in an aircraft accident, should not consider it necessary to investigate again the matters covered or to be covered by the independent investigation of the AAIB. […] [T]he findings and conclusions should not be reopened.”

If you want to read the judgments in full you can find them here: Sussex Police v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor [2016] EWHC 2280 (QB) (28 September 2016) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2280.html)
The Secretary of State, R (on the application of) v HM Senior Coroner for Norfolk & Anor [2016] EWHC 2279 (Admin) (28 September 2016) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2279.html)

dsc810

11th Nov 2017, 20:05

I notice in the full judgement test the Judge hurriedly skipped over the Scottish case where disclosure WAS ordered of the CVFDR.....mmmm too awkward to discuss I guess.

G0ULI

12th Nov 2017, 01:31

Scottish Law is not English Law. Legal decisions made in Scotland do not set a precedent in English Law, although the reverse does not always apply.

OldLurker

12th Nov 2017, 11:00

FWIW, the Air, Rail and Marine AIBs recently agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chief Coroner of England and Wales:
Memorandum of Understanding between the AIBs and the Chief Coroner (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-aibs-and-the-chief-coroner)

Pozidrive

13th Nov 2017, 20:07

..I would point out that at least some of those killed or injured were parked in an area with temporary parking restrictions, erected just for the duration of the airshow. Hindsight is always 20/20 perfect vision, pity the parking restrictions were not thoroughly enforced.

They got killed because they parked in the wrong place? Thank you for pointing that out.

Heathrow Harry

13th Nov 2017, 20:38

The parking restrictions were to do with ROAD traffic of course - not the idea that they were likely to be hit by an aircraft.................

No way round this one - pilot error - not deliberate but still a grim tale................

Euclideanplane

13th Nov 2017, 21:03

Not to be cynical, but if people were killed inside their cars while parked illegally next to an airshow, then it sounds like they were not unsuspecting and just passing by, if you do want to make that distinction.

G-CPTN

13th Nov 2017, 21:29

I think that you will find that some (if not all) of the fatalities of people in vehicles (including a motorcyclist) were simply driving along the highway or pausing at traffic light signals.
There were 'pedestrians' (including photographers - who might have included a motorcyclist and a cyclist) who were hanging around the road junction (where they knew they would have a view of the aerial activity).

Who were the victims (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/03/shoreham-air-crash-victims/)?

LeadSled

14th Nov 2017, 06:52

G-CPTN
That was certainly true of several fatalities on the way to a football match, but the videos clearly show parked vehicles, contrary to the airshow restrictions.
I haven't read what the accident report says on that aspect.

IcePack

14th Nov 2017, 07:25

During Clacton’s air show a lot of the side roads have traffic cones to prevent parking.
Jo public just picks them up and moves them out of the way and parks their vehicle. It would seem that paying for the designated parking is against their psyche. Trouble is the reasons for the cones is to allow access for fire trucks etc.

DaveReidUK

14th Nov 2017, 08:13

That was certainly true of several fatalities on the way to a football match, but the videos clearly show parked vehicles, contrary to the airshow restrictions.

True, but irrelevant.

If parked vehicles were judged to be at risk, then the same would have applied to passing traffic and the road should (given 20:20 hindsight) have been completely closed.

Dr Jekyll

14th Nov 2017, 08:15

LeadSled

14th Nov 2017, 11:09

DavidReidUK,
Sadly, a piece of "risk management" decision making,that, on the day, proved inadequate. I can understand why a local authority would be reluctant to close a major road completely, but decide preventing parking, would be enough.

cessnapete

14th Nov 2017, 15:01

So we are demanding that the area under an aerial display is sterilized of the public?
Expect then at next Farnborough Airshow, Farnborough and Aldershot evacuated and 5 mile ban on traffic perhaps!
It is impossible to mitigate all risk unless air shows are banned. Life can never be 100% safe, neither can we completely stop tragic occurrences like Shoreham happening occasionally.

The Nip

14th Nov 2017, 16:56

Would those people showing a rather indifferent attitude to the deaths of 11 people, still have the same attitude if it was their family members?

Parking in an unauthorised area should not mean that, in the event of death, tough luck.

cessnapete

14th Nov 2017, 18:17

The Nip
Ok tell us without draconian restrictions, how you would prevent people nearby, not spectators, from such an occurrence ever happening again.
Im not indifferent, pragmatic perhaps.

mrangryofwarlingham

14th Nov 2017, 19:04

Effectively turns you into a trespasser

Plenty of case law whether property owners owe trespassers a duty of care when the trespassers have been injured....

G0ULI

14th Nov 2017, 19:33

One of the victims was a chauffeur on his way to pick up a bride and take her to her wedding. Clearly he at least was just travelling perfectly legitimately along a public road with no intent of stopping to watch the air display. Therefore a completely innocent member of the public died as he went about his own business as a result of this incident. He was not trespassing, he was in a public place, and there is strong evidence to suggest that he was a completely innocent victim of circumstance. How many other people were similarly innocent and just happened to be travelling past the display? I would suggest the majority. Those parked up and outside their vehicles had a chance to make a run for it as events unfolded.

Easy answer to preventing similar incidents, ban all display flights over and in the vicinity of any inhabited or transit areas. I don't expect that anyone really wants that to happen.

Therefore it is probably best to leave it up to the organisers, pilots, and maintenance crews to make such displays as safe as possible in the knowledge that they will collectively and individually face the full force of the law if something goes wrong.

It may take only a couple of moments inattention or misjudgement to contribute to a tragedy, but I think the public expect and are entitled to expect display pilots to be at the top of their game and the best of the best. Standards that were singularly lacking in this case, in display planning, in aircraft maintenance, flight discipline and piloting skills.

A and C

14th Nov 2017, 19:52

There are two classes of victims in this case, those who had been going about their business and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The other class of victim is those who decided to avoid the safe areas provided for those who wanted to watch the air display, they had knowlage of the display and decided to take the risk of not being in a safe area.

The first category of victim should have full compensation, the second category of victims clearly had knowlage of the risks and decided to take that risk, this fact should be taken into account when compensation is awarded.

gcal

14th Nov 2017, 20:42

I live close to the scene and there were would have been few illegally parked vehicles.
The crash scene is close to and parallel to the main A27 road - at it's furthest point the crash scene is no more than about 10 metres from the road.
The crashing aircraft had strayed from its route or should simply not have been where it was when it crashed.
It's true there would have been nothing stopping people walking to the spot. I've done it myself in past; likewise there would be nothing stopping people going about their lawful business walking past on their way wherever.
Indeed I would have been doing nothing illegal had I decided to walk in the area on that particular day.
It is not those who happened to be where they were that are in any way at fault; indeed if anybody is.

DaveReidUK

14th Nov 2017, 22:18

The other class of victim is those who decided to avoid the safe areas provided for those who wanted to watch the air display, they had knowlage of the display and decided to take the risk of not being in a safe area.

It's ridiculous to suggest that people who chose to watch a display from the public highway were knowingly putting themselves at more risk than paying spectators watching it from within the airfield boundary.

Would you reduce the compensation payable to the families of those killed at, say, Ramstein or Reno?

LeadSled

15th Nov 2017, 04:20

It is impossible to mitigate all risk unless air shows are banned.
Folks,
Sadly, that is the effective results in Australia, it is well nigh impossible to stage any airshow over what is called (without clear definition) a "populous area" in Australia, leaving a very limited number of venues where a serious airshow can be mounted within reasonable proximity to a population that makes an airshow a viable financial proposition.

As soon as any (but especially aviation) government authority starts talking about "absolute safety" you know your proposal is in trouble.

cessnapete

15th Nov 2017, 07:18

GOULI
Obviously all display pilots hope to be at the top of their game including the one involved in this accident. Why would you want the full force of the law to fall on any making an error of judgement or a mistake?. That would certainly have made me give up display flying, as would the involvement of the police in an AAIB investigation.
No one climbs into a high speed aircraft to display, with the intent to be grossly negligent or reckless in their performance.
We must accept humans are fallible, accidents will happen.

Cornish Jack

15th Nov 2017, 11:13

"No one climbs into a high speed aircraft to display, with the intent to be ... reckless in their performance."
Hmmm? - and what is your definition of reckless as against, for example, 'showing off'? Been in a few, in my time, mainly slow and rotary and not all were 'text-book examples'. Adrenalin rush can modify almost anyone's behaviour.

roving

15th Nov 2017, 13:18

With the greatest of respect some of those commenting here are conflating two distinct and separate issues. Both are equally important but require different trains of thought.

The separate issues are:

(1) Do the competing public interests of (a) permitting airshows with the minimum possible constraints, and (b) minimising the risk of injury or death to the public at large, require the CAA to make changes to the existing rules governing air displays and if so what changes?

(2) Do the circumstances which gave rise to the Shoreham accident evidence criminal conduct on the part of those who organised and controlled the air display and / or the pilot?

So far as the first question is concerned the CAA acknowledged the problem in its report published on 28 May 2016 at page 5 ...

Every time a regulator is faced with a tragic accident, they must consider the balance
between further regulatory controls versus the constraints that might be placed on
activities that people value. Air displays are no different. Every year almost six million
people visit air displays at hundreds of locations across the UK – shows which raise
millions of pounds for charity as well as, in the case of displays like Farnborough,
providing a showcase for advanced British industry. Finding that balance is not easy.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201400%20MAY16.pdf

So far as the second question is concerned, in the absence of all the relevant facts it is premature to express opinions as to whether there is evidence sufficient to justify any prosecution, even assuming such was held to be in the public interest, having regard to the views of the CAA set-out at (1) above.

G0ULI

15th Nov 2017, 14:09

bvcu

15th Nov 2017, 14:39

Difficult one from a regulation point of view , ignoring the pilots part in this , as per the report the aircraft was not airworthy and shouldn't have been flying , mainly due to the CAA not doing their job. If you read the technical side they didn't accept most of this but have now been forced to which has meant that hunters can fly again if the relevant concerns are sorted. How the insurers etc sort this will be the problem when it appears to primarily be a CAA issue.

roving

15th Nov 2017, 15:10

While I agree that there is no currently published evidence to suggest any criminal intent on behalf of anyone involved in the Shoreham display, there is certainly a substantial amount to suggest that negligence (or ignorance) was a factor. Just how much this negligence contributed to the outcome and in what proportion is strictly for a court to establish.

The severity of this incident cannot allow it to be summarised as just a tragic accident with no one held accountable.

I do not think it appropriate to offer law tutorials on pPrune, even though the nature of the issues thrown up were my line of country in professional practice.

To illustrate the complexity of the issues which arise let me make this analogy.

Last Saturday Lewis Hamilton, having been crowned F1 Champion for 2017, was performing time trials to establish his grid position for the race on Sunday. As he freely admitted he 'overcooked it on a bend' resulting in him losing control of the car and hitting a safety wall.

No one was injured. But suppose someone had not only been inured but was killed in that accident, would Lewis Hamilton be at risk of a criminal prosecution? I cannot for speak for Brazil, but in the UK he most certainly would not be. Why? Because the law of England makes a special exception for dangers arising from sport. Another example may help. As long as a boxing bout is performed as a regulated activity the fact that one boxer may cause very serious harm or even death to another boxer does not expose him to the risk of prosecution, even though two boxers involved in prize fighting which was not supervised by a regulated body would on similar facts be breaking the law.

Before one begins to look at whether there was what you describe as negligence, one first has to consider the context. The context here was a public airshow which by its nature is inherently dangerous. Take the two Red Arrows which fly head on towards each other and then one turns a few seconds prior to the two aircraft hitting each other. The intended display of the Hunter came no where close to that. If like Lewis Hamilton the pilot misjudged the loop, that misjudgment like Hamilton's last Saturday was an inherent incident or risk or danger of the activity he was lawfully engaged in.

Let me make it clear, I am not suggesting that the CPS may not mount a prosecution, but merely illustrating the issues it faces. Populism doers not provide the answer on this occasion.

Capt Scribble

15th Nov 2017, 15:28

The two Red Arrows do not fly at each other, it just appears that way to the crowd. They track each edge of the runway if on an airfield!

vintage ATCO

15th Nov 2017, 15:40

G0ULI

15th Nov 2017, 15:42

roving

I accept the point you are trying to establish, but if Lewis Hamilton departed from the track through a gap in the crash barrier and then proceeded onto a public road and then hit several pedestrians who were not attending the race meeting, then we might have a comparable situation.

The case to prove is whether the track officials should have reasonably foreseen that a gap in the barrier might allow such an accident to happen, or was the driver at fault in failing to factor the possibility of departing the track in this manner. Possibly there was some inherent fault in the car that caused it to depart from the planned course.

That is why there will be no simple answers to what happened at Shoreham.

roving

15th Nov 2017, 15:46

The two Hawk jets were said to have touched during an “opposition manoeuvre” in which one aircraft flies like a mirror image of another.
One of the jets’ rudders was damaged and Flt Lt Mike Ling, 30, was forced to eject and parachute to safety from a height of around 1,000ft (300m).
He suffered a dislocated shoulder and cuts and bruises and was taken away for treatment on a stretcher and in a neck brace as a precaution.
Flt Lt Ling, who flies under the call sign Red 6, was last night in the Venizelos state hospital, in the city of Heraklion, and his injuries were described as “not serious”.
The pilot is married and lives with his wife Natalie in Biggin Hill, south east London. The pilot of the other jet was Flt Lt David Montenegro.

Two Red Arrows jets collide in mid-air - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/7506409/Two-Red-Arrows-jets-collide-in-mid-air.html)

Pilot DAR

15th Nov 2017, 15:59

A difference between auto racing on a private track, or boxing in a private ring, is that aviation is regulated by national regulation. The airspace is public, as well as some of the ground and people below. Some aviation regulations place considerable responsibility upon the pilot to fly the aircraft so as to prevent an unsafe situation. Airshow flying not only would not be exempt from these regulations, but would invoke a few more.

roving

15th Nov 2017, 16:10

Airshow flying not only would not be exempt from these regulations, but would invoke a few more.

Are there regulations on the UK Statute book governing air displays, other than those issued by the CAA? Clearly their existing regulations do not cover the case here otherwise they would not be reflecting on whether they should create new ones.

See this on the BBC website.

The CAA states that directors of air shows "should consider imposing minimum height restrictions over local sensitive and congested areas".
But, in its advice to pilots, it remarks that the Hunter "has little difficulty sustaining, or regaining speed and/or altitude during a low-level display". The CAA also defines the loop as among the simplest aerobatic manoeuvres.

What safety rules govern air shows? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34038649)

Tay Cough

15th Nov 2017, 16:23

I am not sure I agree with your first analogy. If a racing team said to their driver, 'take that car out, the brakes are no good but I am sure you can handle it' and the driver did so knowingly then isn't there case of negligence, perhaps criminal negligence? (I don't know what the difference is).

I am not suggesting that is the case here, just I don't think your analogy is a good one.

And I would not accept that airshows are inherently dangerous; the two Red Arrows are never head on.

I would imagine that when the pilot checked the paperwork (I believe historic jet ops mirror RAF processes - F700 equivalent) and also saw the aircraft had a valid Permit, not unreasonably, he believed it was to all intents and purposes airworthy. Short of dismantling the machine to check for himself, I’m not sure there would be a great deal else he could do to satisfy himself of the legality of the flight.

cessnapete

15th Nov 2017, 17:45

Super VC-10

15th Nov 2017, 18:51

And I would not accept that airshows are inherently dangerous; the two Red Arrows are never head on.

Except on 20 January 1971, when XR545 and XR986 did hit each other at Kemble. Four killed.

A and C

15th Nov 2017, 19:41

If I Go to the Isle of Man or the Northwest 200 to watch motorcycle road racing I stand by the side of a closed public road to see very fast motorcycles raced and presumably as a participant in this event I As an adult know the risks of attending and don’t expect compensation if an accident should occur.

Those who decided to stand by a public road outside the protected public area decided to take that informed risk and as adults they are responsible for the consequences of those risks.

Those who simply traveled along that road as part of their day to day life unconnected with the airshow had not made ( and could not be in a position to ) make the decision to take that risk. Therefore these people should get the full amount of compensation due.

Those who decided to put themselfs at additional risk compared to those in the airshow protected areas should not expect the level of compensation due to those who did not opt to take that risk .

DaveReidUK

15th Nov 2017, 20:27

Those who decided to stand by a public road outside the protected public area decided to take that informed risk and as adults they are responsible for the consequences of those risks.

I have no idea what you mean by a "protected public area".

It's in the nature of an air display that participating aircraft can be seen from some distance away, and can normally be expected to perform some manouvres outside the airfield boundary. Whether those who can witness the display from a public road are there for that purpose or are just passing through is immaterial, and the comparison with TT Race spectators is a red herring.

Out of interest, how large a radius outside the airfield boundary would you define as your exclusion zone, within which you consider anyone present with the intention of watching the display to have willingly placed themselves at risk?

roving

16th Nov 2017, 08:08

Having commented yesterday that there were two issues running here, now a third pops up, namely compensation by or on behalf those injured or killed .

That is an easier issue to address.

The law in England is as set-out in this useful review, namely ...

LIABILITY FOR AIRCRAFT DAMAGE TO GROUND OCCUPIERS
-A STUDY OF CURRENT TRENDS IN TORT LAW

Tort law may properly be considered as an ever flexible body of
law constantly changing to meet the needs of society. It must be admitted,
however, that legal concepts have not always succeeded in keeping
apace with the development of the activity. A study of the considerations
affecting liability growing out of aircraft damages to persons
and property on the ground seems useful in reflecting the present trends
and bases of tort law generally. Here the law, caught in a state of flux,
can be objectively appraised in an atmosphere unfettered by rigid
precedent.

Historically aviation was considered an ultrahazardous activity.
For this reason aircraft owners were absolutely liable for damage to
persons and property on the ground.' This rule of liability without
fault was adopted in England and many other foreign countries' as well

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2671&context=ilj

G0ULI

16th Nov 2017, 11:30

roving

An interesting, if somwhat dated document that illustrates some of the issues regarding compensation. I believe that it concludes, in summary, if the presence of an aircraft causes death, injury or damage on the ground, liability falls with the aircraft owner.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the incident wouldn't have happened in the absence of an aircraft flying overhead.

As to the responsibilities of those on the ground, if they were not complicit in the incident i.e. obstructing the aircraft in some way, or within some prohibited area, then compensation is equally payable to all.

I think there is a strong probability that a case can be made that an area of parking restrictions in the interests of promoting free traffic movement is not a prohibited area for the purposes of an air display nearby.

In the 72 years since that digest was published, the law may have accepted that aviation is less dangerous, but the consequences of an incident/accident still remain with the aircraft owner and/or their insurers.

I conclude that all casualties from the Shoreham incident are entitled to compensation for their losses without deduction for their own liability in being within an area subject to parking restrictions. This is because the parking restrictions were imposed to promote the free flow of traffic past the flying display event and not as a safety measure against the possibility of an aircraft crashing within that area.

So no real issue here at all.

davydine

16th Nov 2017, 12:01

dsc810

16th Nov 2017, 12:08

Correct. As in a past airline career, when offered a Load sheet or Tech Log showing an aircraft as serviceable, it is normally accepted. Short of the Captain personally counting the bags in the hold, and weighing the freight, or checking every maintenance operation, one accepts that your highly qualified colleagues have done their job.

Not that this stops the Police/CPS when it comes to road accidents.
Do you remember the case of the multiple fatalities caused by a lorry with defective brakes going out of control down a hill in I think the city of Bath.
Both the maintenance people, the owners AND the lorry driver were charged with manslaughter.
The jury threw out the charge against the lorry driver- though it was aided in their decision that the driver had only been in the job a short while and might well reasonably not known about the dire maintenance state the company seemed to run its vehicle(s) in.

DaveReidUK

16th Nov 2017, 12:36

Yes but this incident happened in training, not at an airshow and they were not flying directly at one another.

More accurately, they shouldn't have been flying directly at one another, but they were.

The collision involved the Opposition Barrel Roll by the Synchro Pair, where one of the two aircraft was slightly late in initiating the manoeuvre and therefore their trajectories converged.

Pilot DAR

16th Nov 2017, 12:45

As an adult know the risks of attending and don’t expect compensation if an accident should occur

It's easy to be cavalier about this when you're not injured. However, a person may have a different perspective after four months in hospital, following an aviation accident.

roving

16th Nov 2017, 12:45

Yes but this incident happened in training, not at an airshow and they were not flying directly at one another.

I always find it of interest that those involved in aviation focus on the facts of some particular accident rather than look at the underlying principle thrown up by the facts.

The important underlying principle is that even when aerobatics are being performed by the very best pilots flying well maintained aircraft, accidents do happen. The Red Arrows display not only in the UK but around the world.

Should the Red Arrows, who perform not only the UK, but across the Globe, be banned? Of course not.

So there is no doubting where I am coming from on the issues thrown-up, my late father not only performed aerobatics, as a QFI he taught aerobatics too

davydine

16th Nov 2017, 15:42

More accurately, they shouldn't have been flying directly at one another, but they were.

The collision involved the Opposition Barrel Roll by the Synchro Pair, where one of the two aircraft was slightly late in initiating the manoeuvre and therefore their trajectories converged.

And I believe that the recommendation was that in future the manoeuvre should be carried out in such a way that the trajectories don't cross.

The implication in the earlier post was that the reds fly straight at one another and then swerve out of the way at the last moment in some sort game of fast jet chicken, which is not the case.

gcal

16th Nov 2017, 16:34

I don't understand the 'parking in an unauthorised area' statements.
The aircraft crashed on a main four lane road, which was not closed and was busy with passing traffic, and that slowed by the congestion caused by vehicles attending the air show. It hit some of these vehicles.
The aircraft then went for a couple of hundred metres along the side, and on, that road.
It's progress may (my inference) have been stopped by some small buildings and a dip in the ground locally known as 'Honeymans Hollow'.
The people travelling on the road and standing or walking near and on it were going about their perfectly lawful business.

roving

16th Nov 2017, 16:49

19 AUGUST 2016 • 12:34PM
The owners of the plane that crashed at Shoreham Air Show, killing 11 men, have settled two compensation claims so far, lawyers for the victims' families said.

Stewarts Law, which is representing some of those affected by last August's crash in West Sussex, said the rest of the cases it is handling are in "advanced negotiations".

James Healy-Pratt, head of aviation at Stewarts Law, said: "Whilst no money will ever bring any of the loved ones back, we did obtain an admission of legal responsibility from the owner of the jet and their aviation insurers in late 2015.

Shoreham air disaster plane owners settle compensation claims with two victims' families (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/19/shoreham-air-disaster-plane-owners-settle-compensation-claims-wi/)