AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015 [Archive] - Page 5

Dr Jekyll

17th Nov 2017, 18:46

I may have posted this before, but there was a case in the UK some years ago involving a spate of accidents at a certain junction. Cars were going straight across a STOP line and being hit by main road traffic which had priority.

Blame was easy to determine, but a traffic engineer decided it was more important to find the cause. He took the view that these collisions were 'accidents' in the sense that they weren't intended. The police were asked to monitor the junction for drivers failing to stop but not to issue tickets, instead to ask the drivers why they didn't stop. The local 'someone is always to blame' brigade got irate at the lack of prosecutions, but not before the police had learnt that the Stop line was very difficult to see in certain lighting conditions. The line was repainted a few feet further back and the junction became much safer.

Quite frankly I'm prepared to go without apportioning blame if the cause of the accident (and yes there are such things) can be determined. The AAIB generally behaves the way the traffic expert did in this case, and rightly.

LeadSled

18th Nov 2017, 04:18

Originally Posted by cessnapete http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/591713-aaib-investigation-hawker-hunter-t7-g-bxfi-22-august-2015-a-post9957456.html#post9957456)
We must accept humans are fallible, accidents will happen.
Folks,
Some of you here are probably familiar with the efforts of Captain Dan Marino, at ICAO, one of the early proponents of "human factors" studies, and the author of many publications on the subject of aircraft accidents and human factors.

Dan was fond of saying: "All aircraft accidents are human factors accidents".

By that, he meant that the "human factor" could reach right back to original design, where a potential failure, that took years to manifest itself, was a human failure, in that the whatever was not anticipated and designed out, or given a totally inadequate risk weighting.

Arguing that there is no such thing as an "accident" is pointless, the whole object of the exercise is to minimise "occurrences that lead to adverse personal, community, social or economic outcomes"( I am multi-lingual, I also speak fluent bureaucratese, as well as English) , without bringing a sector of aviation to an economic or operational standstill by imposing "zero accidents" "policies".

That is: Get the risk management right, and keep the criminal law out of it.

eltonioni

18th Nov 2017, 06:53

That's why organisations use the term 'incident' and 'collision' instead of 'accident'. An accident can sometimes be averted and as there is usually something or someone at fault, that's not an accident.

Air Accidents Investigation Board

Penny Washers

18th Nov 2017, 16:42

I agree, I believe this is now used as an excuse to avoid apportioning blame. During my driving test in Germany, it was explained to me that there is never an ‘accident’. There is always someone/something to blame. I agree.

If two holes in a cheese line up, is that the 'fault' of the first hole or the second hole?

The AAIB does not attempt to allocate blame, and nor should it.

More important is to identify an accident waiting to happen, and then to do something about it - even if this only amounts to a quiet word in the ear of an over-confident pilot.

mrangryofwarlingham

18th Nov 2017, 19:46

Is it suggested that accidents can be caused by over confident pilots

Is it suggested the role of the AAIB is to give advice to pilots

Is it suggested the pilot of the accident in question was over confident

Is it suggested a word in his ear would have prevented the accident

Pozidrive

18th Nov 2017, 20:17

Air Accidents Investigation Board

AAIB, MAIB, RAIB. Consistent and simple.

DaveReidUK

18th Nov 2017, 23:13

And the B in each case stands for Branch, not Board.

Thomas coupling

20th Nov 2017, 15:22

There is no going back now. The regulators, the MAA, the AAIB, almost everyone who is directly involved in airshows has re-written the rule book. Risk is uppermost in everyone's mind and mark my word, the next time this happens (a major incident- at an airshow), the roof will come tumbling in and they will not take prisoners.

Example - the RAFAT have done their best to apply their display axis (from a safety perspective) to each and every venue that requests them.
However, it is the Event Organiser (EO) who MUST own this risk on the day.
He/she must risk management the predetermined display to ensure the terrain over which they fly is safe (secondary crowds).
Parts of the RAFAT display comply with SERA 5005(f), so shouldn't be an issue - but where RAFAT have an alleviation to SERA 5005(f) it is up to the EO to decide whether they want to invite this "risk" to their neighbourhood.
If they do - they must apply "reasonable" efforts to mitigate the risk to 2ndary crowds.
Failure to do so will be perceived by the Authorities to be an act of negligence. [If something goes wrong].
Make no bones about this.

Problem is: what is reasonable?

Only two types of people rule the world: Lawyers and Accountants.

msjh

20th Nov 2017, 16:39

The Red Arrows didn't perform at the Farnborough Air Show last year and, despite FAI having a poster that seems to show the Red Arrows, I doubt they perform there again.

It's getting less and less worthwhile for the general public to attend. RIAT is a far better show.

overstress

30th Nov 2017, 12:06

Only two types of people rule the world: Lawyers and Accountants.

Yes, but the accountants control the lawyers.

eal401

30th Nov 2017, 14:34

This thread is still going strong I see. Nice to see aviation "professionals" are still blaming the victims for being killed.

excrab

30th Nov 2017, 15:03

eal401

I'm sorry, I don't think that any aviation "professionals" blame the victims for being killed.

I think, after 31 years of being paid to fly a variety of aircraft, I can class my self as an aviation "professional". I don't blame the victims for being killed. However what incites me are the legal vultures who after any aviation accident or incident are desperate not to find the cause of the accident so that similar events can be prevented, but who are desperate to find a scapegoat in order that someone can be sued and that a percentage of the monies awarded can find its way into their pockets.

It was not the fault of the innocents on the ground, but you can guarantee that the pilot of this or any other aircraft ever involved in any sort of crash did not take off with the intention of causing injury or death to either himself or herself or any bystanders.

If you are any sort of qualified pilot, navigator, engineer or aviation "professional" you know this. If you are not you have absolutely no qualification, at all, to comment on this forum.

roving

30th Nov 2017, 15:39

eal401

I don't blame the victims for being killed. However what incites me are the legal vultures who after any aviation accident or incident are desperate not to find the cause of the accident so that similar events can be prevented, but who are desperate to find a scapegoat in order that someone can be sued and that a percentage of the monies awarded can find its way into their pockets.

As I posted here recently the insurers of the aircraft admitted liability shortly after the accident and the compensation claims were settled promptly.

Top accident solicitors and barristers had no need to ramp up claims here. If an aircraft falls out of the sky and injures someone on the ground, there is strict liability.

In point of fact the damages arising from death are very modest and are fixed by law. Consequential damages where the deceased person was the breadwinner for dependents are determined on a mathematical basis.

PDR1

30th Nov 2017, 15:42

It was not the fault of the innocents on the ground, but you can guarantee that the pilot of this or any other aircraft ever involved in any sort of crash did not take off with the intention of causing injury or death to either himself or herself or any bystanders.

This is true. But where a pilot proceeds with reckless disregard for the safety of those on the ground, and as a result of that reckless disregard causes deaths, injury and/or property damage they are just as culpable as if they had deliberately crashed into them.

The question here is one of whther the accumulated shortcomings in the preparation and operationof aeroplane and pilot collectively constitute such reckless disregard. And that's a decision which can only be made by a court - "aviation professionals" can inform the decision, but they can't make it.

cessnapete

30th Nov 2017, 19:07

Reading the AAIB report, I would have thought it very difficult to prove a Manslaughter charge from the evidence there.

DaveReidUK

30th Nov 2017, 21:10

If a manslaughter charge were brought, it would not rely solely on the AAIB's findings.

Dan Winterland

1st Dec 2017, 02:34

Reading the AAIB report, I would have thought it very difficult to prove a Manslaughter charge from the evidence there.

And that's the criteria in mind during compilation. No apportion of blame.

roving

1st Dec 2017, 15:11

The unsuccessful appeal by a Royal Air Force officer convicted by a Courts Martial is useful because it contains the following analysis by (the then) Lord Justice Hooper, a Court of Appeal Judge with considerable expertise in criminal law, on provisions applicable to civil flying:

An interesting comparison can be drawn with the provision in respect of the civilian position with regard to low flying. The position there is governed by the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and various regulations made under Sections 60 and 61 of the Act.

The first of those to which my attention has been drawn is the Air Navigation Order 2000. Article 64 creates the offence of Endangering safety of any person or property and provides as follows:

'A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property

That offence carries a penalty of a fine on summary conviction and a fine or a maximum of two years imprisonment or both on conviction on Indictment. Thus an offence which is equivalent to that created by Section 49 of the Air Force Act 1955 carries with it more limited punishment than it would under those provisions.

The United Kingdom Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 -again made under the general authority of the CAA 1982 -provide for an offence of Low Flying in the field of civil aviation. The offence is to be found in Regulations 5(l)(e) and carries a penalty of a fine at Level 4 -currently £2500.

Jackson v R. [2006] EWCA Crim 2380 (17 October 2006) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/2380.html)

I have not researched whether those statutory provisions were still current in 2015 or whether any of the penalties have been subsequently increased.

DaveReidUK

1st Dec 2017, 15:52

The ANO (2016) does still contain that provision, as one would expect.

Hebog

1st Dec 2017, 17:32

Agree with BVCU.

At the end of the day the aircraft was not legally fit to fly. It had numerous failings in regards to it airworthiness which means the Permit to Fly obtained was done so by false representation by the maintenance companies for several years. Do the CAA still carry our prosecutions?

This coupled with the air shows failure to adhere to basic health and safety by failing to complete through risk assessments should mean that they are also investigate and prosecuted by the HSE.

Agree the pilot was probably not aware that the aircraft was not as sound as it appeared. After all if you take a car to a garage for a service you take the car in good faith that all the maintenance has been carried out to the correct acceptable level. You would not then carry out a service yourself to check.

The main question is have the police been provided with the aircraft records so that they may look at these and gather evidence or are these now not available to them. Why can't the police have the actual maintenance records and flight test data direct from the maintenance companies. They should also have access to the aircraft if required, after all how are they to obtain evidence if they aren't able to do this. Obviously they will need to employ specialists to help them as I doubt anyone in the police force will be a qualified aircraft engineer or a fast jet pilot with the relevant experience on type.

Capt Scribble

1st Dec 2017, 17:43

The aircraft did not crash due to a tech defect. It did not make its gate at the top of the loop and the manoeuvre was continued, but you knew that already.

J.O.

1st Dec 2017, 18:57

Exactly. The improper certification may be a finding as to risk but it was not a finding as to cause. It has as much to do with how the accident happened as does what the pilot ate for dinner 5 days before. Nothing.

G-CPTN

1st Dec 2017, 19:52

The main question is have the police been provided with the aircraft records so that they may look at these and gather evidence or are these now not available to them. Why can't the police have the actual maintenance records and flight test data direct from the maintenance companies. They should also have access to the aircraft if required, after all how are they to obtain evidence if they aren't able to do this. Obviously they will need to employ specialists to help them as I doubt anyone in the police force will be a qualified aircraft engineer or a fast jet pilot with the relevant experience on type.

When a road-vehicle collision occurs, the police are the investigating and prosecuting authority as they control whether a vehicle is roadworthy and whether the driver has committed any driving offences.

I don't believe that the police have any authority over the airworthiness of an aircraft.
I'm not sure how much influence they have whether the pilot has broken any aviation laws - who prosecutes a pilot who attempts to fly with too much alcohol? Who administers the breathalyser?
As has been pointed out there are over-riding rules about endangering the public, but they have to obtain evidence - which might be obvious when there has been a crash - but the AAIB are the ones who will have first dibs on the wreckage.

JammedStab

2nd Dec 2017, 02:45

The aircraft did not crash due to a tech defect. It did not make its gate at the top of the loop and the manoeuvre was continued, but you knew that already.

Haven't read the thread so may have been covered. An acquaintance of mine who knew the PIC while in the military said that he wasn't surprised when he found out that he was flying this aircraft.

No other details were asked for or given. Was this a pilot that really shouldn't have been there in the first place?

DaveReidUK

2nd Dec 2017, 07:37

Haven't read the thread so may have been covered. An acquaintance of mine who knew the PIC while in the military said that he wasn't surprised when he found out that he was flying this aircraft.

No other details were asked for or given. Was this a pilot that really shouldn't have been there in the first place?

No, it hasn't been covered.

With a possible prosecution pending, I'd suggest that swapping anecdotes about the competence and track record of an individual pilot on a public forum is totally inappropriate.

wiggy

2nd Dec 2017, 08:16

An acquaintance of mine who knew the PIC while in the military said that he wasn't surprised when he found out that he was flying this aircraft.

That anecdote can be read one of two ways. I like many others knew the PICs weekend “hobby” and when we heard a Hunter had gone in we “weren’t surprised when we found out he was flying the aircraft.”...

If OTOH your acquaintance was commenting on the PICs competence then in the interests of fairness to AH I will say that your acquaintance’s POV is not one shared by many (if any ) of those those who knew him/flew with him/were instructed by him/instructed him in the military or BA. I have no idea of opinion on his reputation within the air show circuit and no wish to prompt debate on that here.

I am however mindful that over the years I have lost several colleagues or ex-colleagues in display flying accidents (flying vintage jets, vintage pistons and in one case a modern jet as part of a team) and so am slightly aware of what an unforgiving environment it can be for even the most diligent to work in.

cessnapete

2nd Dec 2017, 10:07

Completely inappropriate innuendo JammedStab, for a professional Forum. Got an agenda have we?
Don’t know about the Military but in his BA career a top bloke.

airpolice

2nd Dec 2017, 11:35

Perhaps we should separate the crash from the shady dealings with maintenance.

Whatever the reason for it coming to light, there have clearly been things happening that were not as per the book.

To continue with the police theme, stopping a car for speeding, and finding someone tied up and bleeding in the back seat, is never going to end with just 3 points and a £100 fine for speeding.

Prosecution of the pilot might be difficult, but the engineering paper trail will be simple.

Just like weeding out garages who do MOT certificates by post, all of us in aviation need to have some trust in the engineers, and that requires inspection and enforcement of the rules.

M.Mouse

2nd Dec 2017, 11:37

JammedStab, your gossip is unwanted and unwarranted.

AH was my co-pilot on numerous commercial sectors in BA. I also flew with him privately in several different types. His professionalism and approach to the task, whether commercial or private, was always thorough and competent.

He is also a decent individual.

A and C

2nd Dec 2017, 12:28

I have worked with the pilot in question during a film project, he was very considered , safety conscious and professional.

I would be quite happy to offer this opinion in court if asked to do so.

I note that my opinion differs some what from what someone told you and you decided to post.

I can’t help thinking that your unsupported post should be removed from this forum.

airpolice

2nd Dec 2017, 14:14

The post should be allowed to stay.

Apart from protecting freedom of expression, it is important to accept that there may well be people who agree with a point of view, but choose not to expose themselves to the perceived mob. We must not allow the cries of "four legs good, two legs bad" to drown out other voices.

For evil to succeed, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.

This is the internet, everyone is allowed to be heard, and you have the right to regret, but not to retract, anything you have said.

wiggy

2nd Dec 2017, 14:43

Problem is JS’s anecdote carries about as much weight as that of the bloke down the pub, where’s it seems others directly commenting here have actually flown with AH or worked with him....

Now if JS’s mate was a former squadron colleague of AH or one of AH’s supervisors whilst in the RAF the anecdote might carry some weight, if not it is just hot air and perhaps should be considered for deletion.

In the interests of full disclosure I knew AH for a time in the RAF, and had enough confidence in his abilities and airmanship to authorise him for sorties on more than one occasion.

Heathrow Harry

2nd Dec 2017, 18:00

If it does come to trial it would prob. be manslaughter. And a jury will probably convict.

I wonder what sentence might be imposed. I am sure the pilot is suffering the tortures of the damned but on the other hand a lot of people died and the law tends to recognise that as a major factor in sentencing.

He isn't going to do it again but they will also want to send a clear message to everyone for the future.

Also the question of others who may finish in the dock............

Tough call for the judge

Brian W May

2nd Dec 2017, 18:15

exeng

2nd Dec 2017, 23:15

If it does come to trial it would prob. be manslaughter. And a jury will probably convict.

I very much doubt your assumption. Where is Flying Lawyer when you need him.

There was no intent whatsoever to kill. There was no motivation to kill. The people killed were not chosen, or known to the Pilot, but were killed in a random fashion.

This was an accident. There may be some truth in the assumption that the Pilot made errors, or had not prepared sufficiently for the manoeuvres, or whatever. However even if these truths are proven beyond reasonable doubt it seems unlikely that a jury would convict because they would find there was no intent to cause injury or death.

airpolice

2nd Dec 2017, 23:34

I suspect that the absence of those elements is why the poster suggested manslaughter rather than murder.

DaveReidUK

3rd Dec 2017, 06:29

Quite so. The OP seems to be confusing the two.

There was no intent whatsoever to kill. There was no motivation to kill. The people killed were not chosen, or known to the Pilot, but were killed in a random fashion

In law, none of those needs to be present for a manslaughter charge to be brought, nor for a jury to convict.

Heathrow Harry

3rd Dec 2017, 07:04

precisely - it clearly isn't murder

Involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories, constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

Constructive manslaughter

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

For example, a person who fails to stop at a red traffic light while driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#cite_note-9)). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter. The accused's responsibility for causing death is constructed from the fault in committing what might have been a minor criminal act. Reckless driving or reckless handling of a potentially lethal weapon may result in a death that is deemed manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter may be distinguished from accidental death. A person who is driving carefully, but whose car nevertheless hits a child darting out into the street, has not committed manslaughter. A person who pushes off an aggressive drunk, who then falls and dies, has probably not committed manslaughter, although in some jurisdictions it may depend whether "excessive force" was used or other factors.

cessnapete

3rd Dec 2017, 07:21

I don’t see anything in reports so far of criminal negligence or recklessness.
Error perhaps but not criminal in any way.

DaveReidUK

3rd Dec 2017, 07:44

You will never see either of those terms in any AAIB report, for obvious reasons.

roving

3rd Dec 2017, 08:13

This is the advise from the Crown Prosecution Service to its own reviewing lawyers:

(I have edited out parts which do not arise here).

The CAA regulates the safety of civil aviation. In particular, the Air Navigation Order 2005 (ANO), made under section 61 of the CAA creates a number of offences designed to secure the safety of civil aircraft, some relate to the conduct of passengers and air traffic controllers as well as to aircrew. In particular, you should note the following:

Article 73 prohibits any person acting recklessly or negligently in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person therein;

Article 74 prohibits any person recklessly or negligently causing or permitting an aircraft to endanger any person or property;

You will therefore have a choice of proceeding under the CAA or the ANO. Some offences under the CAA are summarily only, whereas an equivalent offence under the ANO may well be triable either way, such as offences under Articles 73, 74 and 75. You should therefore consider:

the likely disposal of the case
the level of danger, actual or perceived, occasioned by the defendant's actions.
If you are reviewing any case involving the issue of aircraft safety you are strongly advised to consult the Civil Aviation Authority. Such prosecutions can pose difficult evidential problems and the Authority, who have a great deal of knowledge and experience in this area, can offer helpful advice. In the first instance, you should contact the Secretary and Legal Adviser.

Transport Offences: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_transport_offences/#conduct)

Assuming that advise is followed the views of the CAA will be relevant. The views of the CAA may be influenced by the many benefits arising from air display flying. Such benefits being carefully noted by the AAIB in its report.

Aside from the two relevant offences under the ANO 2015, both of which are punishable with fines and/or terms of imprisonment, the focus in recent posts here has been on whether a charge of manslaughter should/could be brought and proved.

Manslaughter comes in different forms. The only form of it, in my opinion, which is relevant here is as set-out below. I have attempted to reduce it to language which can be readily understood by a non lawyer.

Involuntary Manslaughter arising from the performance of what in ordinary circumstances would be a lawful act, but which becomes unlawful only by reason of the manner in which it was performed. Evidentially it is a difficult charge to prove. The prosecution would have to establish that the conduct in question was "reprehensible" (to quote from recent English case law). To draw an analogy with offences on a highway, it is easy to see that driving a car whilst drunk or at an excessive speed in a built-up area, could be categorised as "reprehensible". However if a motorist was driving within the law but was involved in a fatal accident caused by his momentary inattention, the driving whilst probably careless would not support a more serious criminal charge which required that the driving was dangerous.

G0ULI

3rd Dec 2017, 08:44

Considerable effort was made in the AAIB report to cover possible altimeter, ASI errors and power setting readings. The AAIB report found many faults, but none of them could be construed as being primarily responsible for the crash.

The question that is likely to be asked of any jury is whether the pilot was reckless in continuing the loop maneouver when it became apparent that the minimum gate height had not been achieved at the top of the loop?

An experienced pilot should be aware of their approximate altitude even without the aid of cockpit instruments.

If lack of practice time due to fuel, cost, and timed life component restraints rendered the pilot's judgement of altitude and attitude unreliable, should they have attempted recovery or continued the maneouvre immediately it became apparent something was going wrong with the display?

Perhaps the flying costs would only be covered by the display organisers if the full display sequence was flown?

Finally, was the pilot fully briefed and aware of airspace restrictions and correct exit routes in event of an in flight emergency. This is also covered to some extent in the AAIB report.

If you just read the AAIB report, one might be drawn to some quite damning conclusions. The important thing to bear in mind is that nothing in that report can be used in court and AAIB reports can not be used to prove or demonstrate fault or liability. Any evidence presented must be from an independent investigation conducted by the police and they will have a much harder job of creating a watertight case for the CPS to take to court.

Basil

3rd Dec 2017, 09:04

He might have been the best of the best and a wonderful human being, talented pilot et al.

You're only as good as your last landing - and that was shyte, he ignored several opportunities to stop the disaster happening.
Many years ago, following a crash, the boss remarked that a crew, who were normally competent, were incompetent on the day.

Never forgotten that snippet of wisdom.

RAT 5

3rd Dec 2017, 09:09

The question that is likely to be asked of any jury is whether the pilot was reckless in continuing the loop maneouver when it became apparent that the minimum gate height had not been achieved at the top of the loop?

This might be repetitive, but....this might have been the last point of escape as things were going wrong. Has it not been established that the entry height was too low and the speed too low. This meant the a/c did not have enough potential & kinetic energy. This was the start point, and perhaps root cause. It was then a a too low G pull up. This one can surmise that it was not surprising the 'gate' at the top of the looping manoeuvre was not achieved.
So perhaps the question for any jury would asked whether the pilot was reckless in not achieving the start gate, never mind the top gate. One leads to the other, and the start gate parameters are directly under the pilot's control with little stress, startle factor or surprises due to competent planning & self-briefing. However, perhaps the pilot was distracted on arrival by something not yet revealed and that caused the low energy at the the start gate.

Capt Scribble

3rd Dec 2017, 09:38

Although the entry parameters are important and indicate whether you are likely to make your gate at the top, the final decision is made before committing to nose down at the apex of the looping manoeuvre. That decision is fundemantal to low level aerobatics.

DaveReidUK

3rd Dec 2017, 10:29

Any evidence presented must be from an independent investigation conducted by the police and they will have a much harder job of creating a watertight case for the CPS to take to court.

The West Sussex coroner reported three days ago that the police investigation is complete and the file has been passed to the CPS, who are responsible for deciding whether criminal charges are to be brought.

There is mounting pressure on the CPS from the families of the deceased for a decision on that no later than the next coroner's hearing, which is on 24th January.

mrangryofwarlingham

3rd Dec 2017, 11:24

You sure about that?

D SQDRN 97th IOTC

3rd Dec 2017, 11:30

Hoyle v Rogers dealt with the issue of admission of AAIB reports.

Worth a read for those that haven't read it rather than go over old ground again (and again)

roving

3rd Dec 2017, 12:02

That was a civil damages claim not a criminal trial. Entirely different rules regarding admission of evidence and the balance and burden apply. Quite apart from anything else a civil claim is tried by a Judge alone. Any criminal trial will be tried by a Judge and Jury.

In civil damages cases just about anything is admissible. The weight given to it by the Judge is a different matter. Closer to the flames here is the decision of the Divisional Court refusing the Police's application for disclosure of the "evidence" held by the AAIB. If the report, without the source materials, could be introduced as "evidence", there would be no need to have made the application.

airpolice

3rd Dec 2017, 13:31

What's the history of the crown calling AAIB investigators as witnesses then?

If the prosecution are not allowed to rely on the report, is there a method of preventing them "discovering" the same facts by the police interviewing, under caution, AAIB staff?

That way, leaving the report aside, they can ask the questions of a witness, who has a good understanding of what he discovered.

roving

3rd Dec 2017, 14:53

I cannot think of any circumstances by which the Police could interview under caution civil servants employed by the AAIB.

Pontius Navigator

3rd Dec 2017, 15:50

Completely inappropriate innuendo JammedStab, for a professional Forum. Got an agenda have we?
Don’t know about the Military but in his BA career a top bloke.

This comment relates only to what you said and not to any particular person.

The description "Top Bloke" is entirely subjective and can be taken in many ways from 'consummate professional' to 'life and soul of the party'. In other words without context it is meaningless.

In the thread context I see subsequent posters have given a better assessment. Cheers.

Heathrow Harry

3rd Dec 2017, 16:37

"I cannot think of any circumstances by which the Police could interview under caution civil servants employed by the AAIB."

The Police are empowered to interview ANYONE if they think a crime has been committed and that includes members of the Royal family - I don't think anyone has any "protection" against that

roving

3rd Dec 2017, 16:59

it is the words under caution I was questioning. To interview a person under caution the police have to suspect the person of having committed an offence.
The wording of the caution is:
You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

It is all quite simple.

1. There are offences -- which I set about above under the ANO which the Police could charge.

2. If the Police wish to charge a more serious offence they need to have all their ducks in a row.

3. Under Statute save where the High Court gives permission -- and it has refused it in this case -- the Police cannot rely on any statements obtained by the AAIB or on any calculations made the AAIB.

4. The police are however free to employ their own experts.

5. If they wish to take a statement from anyone other than an employee of the AAIB, they are free to do so. Equally those being asked to assist are free to withhold their consent.

6. If the Police wish to interview a person whom they suspect may have committed an offence, they are free to do so before he is charged providing he is cautioned. A person cautioned has the right to refuse to answer.

Super VC-10

3rd Dec 2017, 20:09

Given the above, am I right in thinking that the police may request an interview with an AAIB investigator involved in investigating the accident in question.

If so, I'm probably also right in thinking that any such request will be met with a two-fingered salute. Quite right too IMvHO.

DaveReidUK

3rd Dec 2017, 21:08

Or not, as the case may be.

The AAIB has an MoU with both the CPS and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) providing for cooperation and evidence/information sharing.

JammedStab

4th Dec 2017, 05:03

Completely inappropriate innuendo JammedStab, for a professional Forum. Got an agenda have we?
Don’t know about the Military but in his BA career a top bloke.

Do I have an agenda, yes. Only for the full truth to come out in any accident. I have seen a disaster that killed many where the final report mentioned nothing about the PIC's multiple failures in training even though the investigators knew about it.

I admit that what I posted was only something that was told to me by someone who appeared to be credible. Obviously no evidence or further info was given to me.

It could be bad info and I could have said nothing further but after what happened in the earlier crash I alluded to, I refuse to do so(in that case, I said similar words of "I am not surprised/that is who I guessed it would be"). Others in the know can feel free to prove the allegation wrong which is fine by me but flying at BA is a lot different that the military/airshow environment.

Ex Cargo Clown

4th Dec 2017, 06:34

Or not, as the case may be.

The AAIB has an MoU with both the CPS and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) providing for cooperation and evidence/information sharing.

True, but but that's the board as a generic entity. The only way they can quiz individuals is under caution for a criminal offence. If hey were desperate they could charge under some trumped up charge, maybe Obstructing a Police Officer - section 89(2) Police Act 1996. Can't see it though. Plus an MoU isn't legally binding.

DaveReidUK

4th Dec 2017, 07:43

Ah, I see - "we'll cooperate and share evidence with you, but none of our people will talk to any of your people".

Legalapproach

4th Dec 2017, 09:50

Ex Cargo Clown

Complete and utter rubbish. The police can speak to anyone and ask whether they are prepared to assist and/or provide a witness statement. They can 'quiz' anyone. Only if they are a suspect is it necessary to caution them.

The police could approach a member of the AAIB and ask them to provide details of their individual findings. It would be up to the individual whether they were prepared to provide a statement. It would not be done under caution. AAIB staff were called by the prosecution in the Hoyle trial to support their case as to the physical findings (although it didn't get the prosecution very far!).

wiggy

4th Dec 2017, 10:08

Others in the know can feel free to prove the allegation wrong which is fine by me but flying at BA is a lot different that the military/airshow environment.

Err...oh, gosh, really, is it? Thanks for the insight (goes off to look at logbook...piston trainer, jet trainer, faster jet trainer, supersonic fighter..jet trainer...Widebody, widebody, widebody.....:ugh: ).

You’ve still managed to cunningly leave the “but” in that comment, so I guess you want to leave the accusation hanging...

Can you now at least accept that you have now had “character references” (for what they are worth, this being the internet etc) ) from people who seem to have known/worked with/supervised AH in the military and in BA, and that some (self included) have interacted occasionally with him in both environments and perhaps over a period of many years .

Nobody yet, apart from your mate, qualifications and experience of AH as yet unspecified, has yet to offer up an opinion or evidence that would have led one to believe that on the basis of his flying in the RAF or flying in BA AH was a later day Bud Holland.....So either come up with a concrete instance of AH’s training record or flying in the military (or BA for that matter) that led your friend to form his opinion or stop repeating the allegation and hints.

What happened on the air show circuit is another matter - I will freely admit I really don’t have insight into that and don't know how AH performed or was regarded there...that is perhaps is an opinion that might have been interesting but your mate wasn’t commenting on that, was he/she?

roving

4th Dec 2017, 12:22

Does the higher speed/altitude required to perform the loop in the Hunter, compared with the JP, arise because the Hunter, unlike the JP, has swept back wings?

JammedStab

4th Dec 2017, 15:14

Err...oh, gosh, really, is it? Thanks for the insight (goes off to look at logbook...piston trainer, jet trainer, faster jet trainer, supersonic fighter..jet trainer...Widebody, widebody, widebody.....:ugh: ).

Seems like you need some insight. Attempts at condescending remarks and showing off your background don't prove your point. But I am so impressed with all the widebodies in your airline experience which must make your opinion more correct.(goes off to look at logbook...narrowbody, narrowbody, widebody, widebody plus 6 turboprops and loads of trainers...oops no military)

You’ve still managed to cunningly leave the “but” in that comment, so I guess you want to leave the accusation hanging...

Can you now at least accept that you have now had “character references” (for what they are worth, this being the internet etc) ) from people who seem to have known/worked with/supervised AH in the military and in BA, and that some (self included) have interacted occasionally with him in both environments and perhaps over a period of many years .

Nobody yet, apart from your mate, qualifications and experience of AH as yet unspecified, has yet to offer up an opinion or evidence that would have led one to believe that on the basis of his flying in the RAF or flying in BA AH was a later day Bud Holland.....So either come up with a concrete instance of AH’s training record or flying in the military (or BA for that matter) that led your friend to form his opinion or stop repeating the allegation and hints.

What happened on the air show circuit is another matter - I will freely admit I really don’t have insight into that and don't know how AH performed or was regarded there...that is perhaps is an opinion that might have been interesting but your mate wasn’t commenting on that, was he/she?

The character references are appreciated. BA reference means little in terms of this incident in my opinion in the same manner that there have been plenty highly qualified airline pilots that have had general aviation accidents due to pilot error/poor judgement. However, you did mention Bud Holland which is interesting. Seeing as a reference of someone being able to gain from his superior(and I'll quote from this threads character reference)....."enough confidence in his abilities and airmanship to authorise him for sorties on more than one occasion", I'm sure your insight would tell you that Mr. Holland was able to gain in his military career in various squadrons exactly the same. Yet we know what happened with Mr. Holland. Which proves that having been authorized for a sortie more than once doesn't prove anything.

As for the mate's comments, I am not 100% sure/can't remember if it was in the military, in the airshow circuit or combination of both. Don't want to risk forwarding anything I am not sure about and the only thing I am sure about is an unproven allegation. I do believe that the report itself makes comment about a previous incident although that obviously doesn't prove anything. I'm sure plenty of safe, successful performers have made a similar error once or twice in their career.

Pilot DAR

4th Dec 2017, 15:23

Steady on posters....

wiggy

4th Dec 2017, 16:08

JS

Yet we know what happened with Mr. Holland. Which proves that having been authorized for a sortie more than once doesn't prove anything.

Fair comment, but I am not sure it helps us here. As I understand the history regarding Bud Holland he had a reputation that was doing the rounds well before his accident, several crew members had him on a "no fly with list" and one of the poor souls killed in the accident itself was only onboard because whilst he had concerns and he was the only supervisor prepared to fly with BH.

As far as AH is concerned if you can find multiple sources prepared to step up and say he had a “reputation”, was on some people’s "no fly with list", and/or was being shielded by supervisors then perhaps the debate can continue andthe comparison might be be valid...until then I don’t think you can draw comparisons ....

And just about finally, FWIW (by way of further disclosure) I flew with AH on a few occasions in the military in a supervisory role (and I'm not talking about BFTS or AFTS) and I perosnally don’t recall anything out of the norm or any of the other unit supervisors expressing doubts or concerns.

Again I have knowledge or opinion of the air show situation...

And with that, unless there’s further evidence, I am “out”,

JammedStab

5th Dec 2017, 05:01

Thanks for the reference for your first-hand experience in a supervisory role. While certainly pertinent in terms of ability, we all know that personality is really only fully unleashed when one is finally in charge with no supervisor.

ehwatezedoing

5th Dec 2017, 06:32

And with that, unless there’s further evidence, I am “out”,
Wiggy, I don’t think anybody is implying that he acted knowingly recklessly during his carreer as Hollande did. If so, they shouldn’t.
There may have been a few days where he was not particularly «stellar» For whatever reasons. Lack of training, fatigue or else. Versus being «highly competent» Most of the time.

As you are fully aware, this airshow environment is less forgiving.

If you search directly on YouTube: «Jet Provost southport air show 2014 - andy hill southport airshow»
There is an example of what looked like not a particular .... stellar day to perform.

Mahogany Fighter

5th Dec 2017, 08:29

Rather than trying to dissect AHs character or career let’s focus on what barriers may or may not have been put into place post his demonstrably very worrying performance at Southport.
What measures/barriers were put in place, recorded and acted upon by AH, his supervisors (DAE), CAA, FCC etc. to ensure the apparent deficiencies were addressed?
Ultimately, if any measures were applied, why did they fail?

pax britanica

5th Dec 2017, 09:24

This case is likely to be politicised due to the number of fatalities- being able to pin the blame on one individual shows that regulators and government are tough on these kind of issues which gets them off being tough on corporate manslaughter which is usually at the heart of transport disasters and never results in any prosecution of the management who are usually at the back of things.

So this I feel will go the tragic way of the BA 747 Captain- pilot in command gets the book thrown at them , and I am not for a minute suggesting there isnt a real issue here with the performance on the day but the powers that been will want to avoid the bleeding obvious that some areas around all airshows should be sterilised (ie not over flown) or where practical blocked off. That could have very serious consequences

OldLurker

5th Dec 2017, 09:40

Basil

5th Dec 2017, 09:56

Wx looked poor for LL aeros in that 2014 Southport video.
Q for display pilots and managers only: Would it be reasonable for the display manager to call horizontal only or cancel?

roving

5th Dec 2017, 11:54

Also, the blame game is probably strongly influenced, as usual, by the insurance companies. Blame = liability. Each actor's insurers will be trying to avoid paying out by working behind the scenes to pin the blame on another actor.

This is the third time I have had to draw attention to the fact that the insurers of the aircraft admitted responsibility and settled the claims within months of the accident.

I know that when anything goes wrong it is custom and practice to blame the lawyers and the insurers, but invariably they are more professional than those who created the problem in the first place.

OldLurker

5th Dec 2017, 12:23

So you did. Apologies: I failed to engage brain before operating keyboard ...

H Peacock

5th Dec 2017, 17:04

Would it be reasonable for the display manager to call horizontal only or cancel?

Not really practical and from a weather perspective the pilot displaying is in the best position to assess the weather. Not many displays have a 'manager' or team member on the ground to be able to make the call anyway.

airpolice

5th Dec 2017, 17:41

Financially suicidal I would think.

I don't know a lot about the airshow business, but I would expect that the organisers might not want to pay, if you don't display.

You will still have incurred a serious cost to get there, and back home.

However, in this case we seem to be overlooking the bit where some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue.

H Peacock

5th Dec 2017, 19:44

Air police, my comments were referring to a possible call from the ground to 'go flat' or 'cancel' once the display was commenced.

I guess you're referring to the implications of cancelling prior to the display aircraft departing for the venue.

airpolice

5th Dec 2017, 21:42

You guess wrongly.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be clear in the contract. The amount money involved can be significant.

Failing to complete the task, might be seen as grounds for not paying.

Hebog

6th Dec 2017, 09:18

So basically the police have to provide evidence when they have no access to any of the data, files or the aircraft itself. They have to themselves undertake the same investigative work as the AAIB have already done and call in independent professionals. As far as I am concerned as would many others that there is no reason why the police/CPS can't use the factual info provided by the AAIB in their report.. Not the statements but the data only.

Does this also apply to the CAA and if they are in charge of air safety instead of the HSE, do they carry out prosecutions too. As I see it there are a number of prosecutions that could be carried out by various bodies if that it is the case. After all if the CAA are meant to ensure regulations are adhered to they must also show they are prepared to act against rogue companies/bad practices. What is the point of regulatory bodies if they are not prepared/willing to act.

After all the CAA have failed to ensure the safety of the public by not undertaking through checks on the pilot and his training/authorisation, the maintenance and condition of the aircraft including any restrictions, allowance of a flight test showing possible engine abnormalities, non-compliance with the owners own organisation manual and lack of through risk assessments by the airshow organisers.

For me there is still a question over the engine mapping for the 'loop' as it appears to be different to others he had performed in the aircraft. This with the engine abnormalities recorded in the test flight (was the test pilot interviewed and his records checked) and the additional issues with the ASI may be used by AH in defence.

roving

6th Dec 2017, 10:57

The CAA do frequently prosecute offences contravening their regulations. Examples: flying drones, flying without insurance or without a licence or current medical certificate , low flying, flying into controlled airspace without permission. The penalties are very modest and normally between a £200 and £3000.

In this high profile case the Police appear to have decided that the CAA menu of regulatory offences do not meet the gravamen of the case and they have conducted their own investigation taking hundreds of statements and very probably consulting with various experts. The papers are now with the Crown Prosecution Service and no doubt it is consulting with the CAA and others as part of the decision making process.

It is will be forensically interesting to see how this all pans out.

G0ULI

6th Dec 2017, 11:19

It is perhaps worth pointing out (again) that the police role is solely to gather evidence. It is for the CPS to assess the evidence obtained and make a decision as to whether it is admissable, obtained fairly (from a legal standpoint), and whether the evidence is sufficient to bring a criminal case before the courts with a reasonable chance of obtaining a successful prosecution.

There is a completely separate procedure for civil action(s) mounted to obtain damages.

A Coroners Inquest into the deaths will also come up with its' own set of findings that may impact on criminal and civil procedings.

roving

6th Dec 2017, 11:44

1. The Coroner's Inquest will be adjourned until a decision is made in respect of the criminal investigation. If a prosecution is to occur, the Inquest will be further adjourned until a verdict or outcome.

2. The civil damages aspects arising from this accident were settled some appreciable time ago.

dsc810

6th Dec 2017, 12:47

This is the third time I have had to draw attention to the fact that the insurers of the aircraft admitted responsibility and settled the claims within months of the accident.

Mainly because under the law it works as a strict liability.
In other words the insurers cannot duck liability under any circumstances regardless of any deficiencies in the aircraft or the pilot or of licensing...etc.
They are compelled to pay out.

Hebog

7th Dec 2017, 12:32

The police/CPS I doubt will bring a prosecution against the maintenance companies for falsely claiming the aircraft meet CAA regulations/rules and all maintenance practices had been carried out in accordance with those. Hopefully the CAA will be undertaking a review of the licences of these companies.

The airshow organisers may face prosecution of some form, such as corporate manslaughter due to inadequate risk assessments being carried out. As could the company owning the hunter as they should have also carried out a risk assessment The pilot may face gross negligence, deaths in workplace, and H&S offences. As far as I am aware prosecution of organisations can now take place where there has been a gross failure in the management of health & safety that has resulted in someone's death. The organisation comments an offence if the way its activities are managed or organised causes a death that amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care to the deceased. A prosecution would be based upon a substantial failure within the organisation at a senior level. The courts dealing with a prosecution will look at management systems and practices throughout the organisation.

So basically, if the CPS deem that the airshow organisers and the hunter owners had a duty of care to the general public (paying or otherwise) then they could face prosecution provided that the evidence shows a failure in care. Which according the AAIB report it does due to lack of risk assessments and non-compliance with CAA regulations.

roving

7th Dec 2017, 13:32

The last thing those with ultimate authority for deciding whom should be prosecuted for what will want is this turning into some three month show pony with costs awarded against the Crown at the end of it for bringing charges they had no reasonable prospect of proving.

1. The CAA will not want its regulatory function under the microscope.

2, The Government will not want any outcome which may curtail airshows. Farnborough is vitally important.

3, The Military will not want any outcome which may require them to curtail low flying or aerobatics as part of training, including UAS aerobatics.

Ranger One

11th Dec 2017, 02:40

Failing to complete the task, might be seen as grounds for not paying.

That kind of thinking has... considerable safety implications, to put it mildly.

Would the CAA tolerate an operator telling an ATPL PIC, or even implying to an ATPL PIC, 'operate the flight or you don't get paid'?

airpolice

11th Dec 2017, 08:17

That kind of thinking has... considerable safety implications, to put it mildly.

Would the CAA tolerate an operator telling an ATPL PIC, or even implying to an ATPL PIC, 'operate the flight or you don't get paid'?

This is not about the operator not paying the pilot, it's about a customer not paying a supplier, who has declined to supply a service.

Should you call a central heating engineer out to your hotel, because the guests are freezing, but he fails to attend because of the bad weather, would you still pay him anyway? Would the guests pay you if they had to leave because of the cold?

mrangryofwarlingham

11th Dec 2017, 08:36

Well known concept

You can agree in a contract where the risk falls

iceman50

11th Dec 2017, 14:11

airpolice

You are correct

I don't know a lot about the airshow business, but I would expect that the organisers might not want to pay, if you don't display.

Safety comes well before displaying when the conditions are not suitable. Display pilots would have a horizontal routine should the weather preclude a "normal" routine and if the weather was unsuitable for that a fly past or nothing at all. They were my plans for displaying.

As for However, in this case we seem to be overlooking the bit where some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue. I think the "event" occurred outside the display area.

Heathrow Harry

11th Dec 2017, 15:04

airpolice

11th Dec 2017, 19:56

airpolice

You are correct

Quote:
I don't know a lot about the airshow business, but I would expect that the organisers might not want to pay, if you don't display.

Safety comes well before displaying when the conditions are not suitable. Display pilots would have a horizontal routine should the weather preclude a "normal" routine and if the weather was unsuitable for that a fly past or nothing at all. They were my plans for displaying.

As for

Quote:

However, in this case we seem to be overlooking the bit where some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue.

I think the "event" occurred outside the display area.

Are you saying that the organisers, council, police and CAA are not responsible for activity outside of the airfield or crowd area?

The crash occurred on the 230m line so isn't that their responsibility - an area that you as a display pilot would expect to be sanitised, would you not?

So is the pilot solely responsible for this area? This is not my interpretation of the AAIB report, nor their damning analysis of the Shoreham Airshow Risk Assessment and their wider criticism of the organisational aspects.

The AAIB commissioned a review by the Health and Safety Laboratory, of the risk assessment for the 2015 show. The review also considered the equivalent risk assessments for the 2013 and 2014 Shoreham air shows. It’s reports stated;

“It was found that the Shoreham Air show Air Display Risk Assessment contained a number of deficiencies compared to what would have been expected for a risk assessment to control risks to the public.”

My point remains...... some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue.

The organisers of the 2015 Shoreham Airshow had identified that the junction of the A27 was a popular location from which to view the display. The AAIB was informed that in previous years several hundred people had been observed at the road junction between the A27, Shoreham Bypass, and the Old Shoreham Road, and in the grounds of a nearby, now closed, public house.

The display organisers and the local emergency services had been concerned about the road traffic risk to these crowds and the display organisers had taken steps to minimise the number of people in this area.

The ground operations risk assessment identified the hazard as, ‘Fast moving
trunk road. 70 mph dual carriageway Traffic lights and queuing traffic.’ and
proposed the action as ‘Traffic management plan in place. No right turns. Traffic Lights off and 40 mph limit in place.’

The arrangements, which had been in place for several years, included
restricting the view of the airfield, placing signs in the area and having stewards ask people to move on.

However, neither the organisers nor the police had requested or been granted the power to exclude people from this area and their efforts did not prevent a gathering at the A27 junction.

iceman50

11th Dec 2017, 22:05

airpolice

he crash occurred on the 230m line so isn't that their responsibility - an area that you as a display pilot would expect to be sanitised, would you not?

Short answer NO. You have to plan your display for the venue and the weather. I would expect the display line to be sanitised. You don't just turn up without preparation. You seem to think that the whole area should have been closed down by quoting the AAIB report. That would have been a major inconvenience for the majority of the public in that area. The Health and Safety Laboratory would find deficiencies in any organised event.

As you say
This is not my interpretation of the AAIB report, nor their damning analysis (Your interpretation again)

cessnapete

11th Dec 2017, 22:10

airpolice
Ridiculous requirement. You cannot “sanitise” an airshow environment unless you clear all activity beneath a display footprint. And any footprint beneath the possible uncontrollable trajectory of the display aircraft after mechanical failure, pilot error etc.
This has never been done. i.e. clearing out all the residents and traffic movements at Aldershot and Farnborough during the air display?. Impossible and unreasonable, and would shut down future air displays if implemented because of the Shoreham event, however tragic the outcome.
You can never have absolute safety unless you ban the activity taking place.

airpolice

11th Dec 2017, 22:33

You can however, do all that you have agreed needs to be done. That didn't happen.

cessnapete

12th Dec 2017, 07:14

airpolice
Ok then, how many roads around the airport should, or would you have closed?. What about the occupants of adjacent homes and buildings?
Prior to the event how would you have known that an out of control aircraft would impact that 50mts. of highway rather than 50 mts either side hurting no one other than perhaps the pilot? Who would you blame for this lack of perceived of foresight?
Again it is logical that without complete sanitisation of the area under any high energy display you cannot prevent the million to one chance of an event like this.
Safety is not absolute.

airpolice

12th Dec 2017, 10:01

I don't know which roads ought to have been closed, I didn't do the safety case for the air show. My point is that some of the people who did, failed to have it carried out.

They didn't know, but they suspected, and agreed that it was important to mitigate the potential, then failed in their duty to do so. This is not hindsight, they saw it coming and formulated a plan to minimise the danger, then failed to execute the plan.

cessnapete

12th Dec 2017, 16:11

Here you go again! You can't say just some roads should have been closed without knowing where anything may have impacted. No person can be blamed for that, other than saying he/she should have shut down all activity under the flight path.
What about Shoreham town centre? How did this person know that something wouldn't land there, should mishap occur?

airpolice

12th Dec 2017, 16:16

I am not suggesting that roads should have been closed.

I am just pointing out that the measures that were agreed, to mitigate some of the risks, were not carried out.

The people who came up with the plan decided that traffic lights should stay on green, to prevent a build up of traffic.

As it turns out, they were right to suggest that, but they didn't make it so.

MATELO

12th Dec 2017, 17:53

Yes they were. The risk was identified as traffic, not aircraft crashes and measures were put in place.

Risk is a part of everyday life and you are not expected to eliminate all risks. What you must do is make sure you know about the main risks and the things you need to do to manage them responsibly.

Your risk assessment should only include what you could reasonably be expected to know - you are not expected to anticipate unforeseeable risks.

cessnapete

12th Dec 2017, 19:11

So, the traffic lights if kept at green meant that the aircraft would impact moving traffic. How does that mitigate the event that happened? "The people" you keep referring to, could not have prevented an event such as this by adjusting a few traffic light sequences. Any blame cannot rest with 'These people"

mrangryofwarlingham

13th Dec 2017, 07:52

Should the Le Mans motor race have been cancelled after 1955?
How about the Isle of Man TT...formula 1?

Or ban NASCAR now before a spectator gets killed.
Can they GUARANTEE safety?

Uplinker

13th Dec 2017, 09:52

This pilot had not flown the Hunter very much previously to this airshow. I would strongly suggest that was not current with the aircraft and was not current to perform these manouevers.

In the airline world, we have to have special extra training and clearance to land scheduled passenger jets at Gibralter - which is entirely standard, but a bit short and a bit tight with occasional dodgy winds. Only Captains who have had extra training are authorised to do so and if they haven’t done so for 42 days, it is mandatory to carry a current TRI/TRE either in the RHS or the jump seat to revalidate and ensure the approach is flown correctly.

All well and good. But there at Shoreham, we have a very old aircraft that was maintained by a band of no doubt keen but also not current (on the Hunter) enthusiast engineers. Spare parts are extremely rare, budgets are extremely tight. Rubber seals for example lose their effectiveness over time and should be periodically replaced. I don’t recall if the engine had been properly tested, run, borescoped, or whether engine thrust measurements had been made in the days before the display?

The pilot self briefed. He did not sit in a formal briefing room with other display pilots and a white board and support staff to go through the display, the weather, the performance gates, possible failures and escape manoeuvres and talk everything through.

I am not personally blaming anybody involved in the sequence I have outlined - none of them were deliberately negligent and I am sure they all did their best on the day - but I feel very strongly that the authorities must mandate much stricter rules and processes. Aerobatic display flying should only be performed by current display pilots or current test pilots on properly maintained machines. Proper military style briefings should be carried out. The authorities should go through everything with a fine toothed comb and have a representative there on site before approving aerobatic displays by old aircraft and allowing them to take off.

Cost more money? You bet, but as the old saying goes “If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident”

.

mrangryofwarlingham

13th Dec 2017, 10:50

DaveReidUK

13th Dec 2017, 12:27

Uplinker

If you could please advise which defect in the aircraft caused the accident then?
If you could please clarify your statement about not being current?
And if you could please point me towards the relevant sections in the AAIB report detailing these matters?

That would be very helpful.
Thank you.

The AAIB report identified insufficient thrust during the upward part of the loop as a causal factor.

While it did not definitively attribute that to a mechanical defect, it concluded that "an uncommanded reduction in thrust during the accident manoeuvre could not be ruled out".

bvcu

13th Dec 2017, 13:11

Cant be proved whether it had a bearing on accident but the aircraft was not airworthy on a number of counts and anyone with knowledge of operating and maintaining those engines professionally will know you can't discount the thrust reduction which may have caught him out due to some other distraction which we will never know the answer to . But factually the airworthiness issue is more of an issue for the CAA than the operator as they approved the permit to fly . Read the report and you will find they rejected most of the maintenance issues before eventually being forced to accept most of them . Could be interesting in court because it should be the CAA in the dock for this even if it can't be proved it was the cause of this sad accident