MoD pays £5 Million to plane crash victims family - Update
5F6B, I can only conclude that someone else had decided, despite all evidence to the contrary including the AAIB accident report, that the Sea King crew was somehow to blame.
If there was any such criticism in any RAF BoI or accident report, then it sounds awfully like an MoD own goal.
If there was any such criticism in any RAF BoI or accident report, then it sounds awfully like an MoD own goal.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my mind, the issue here is not about fault or the compensation paid... or whether we should close MOD airfields to GA as a knee-jerk reaction to this accident... it's about the lessons we could learn to prevent something similar happening again?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot really see that there are a great number of lessons to be learnt. Different aircraft types either in the circuit or waiting to take off/ land has surely been a feature of aviation for decades.
The only training that seems to be in question is the pilot currency in the Cessna.
The only training that seems to be in question is the pilot currency in the Cessna.
Pilot currency, or more accurately 'recency', in the PPL world is, if anything, more specific now than in pre-JAR days.
To carry passengers, a pilot must have flown 3 take-offs and landings in the previous 90 days.
To validate his Single Engine Piston Class Rating, a pilot may revalidate by proficiency check in the last 3 months of the 24 month rating validity period. Or, if he chooses to do so by experience, in the second 12 month period of the 24 month rating validity period, he must complete 12 hours, of which 6 must be as PIC and 1 must be a training flight with an instructor.
Most of us in the GA world welcomed these increased training and recency requirements. Beforehand it was just 5 hours in 13 months with no requirement for any flying training at all. PPL pilots could fly for 40 years or more without ever having any refresher training.
Also Safety Sense Leaflet 26 - Visiting Military Aerodromes is now freely available in LASORS.
Benson has an excellent RW/light aircraft segregation policy. Basically,a 180m Final Approach and Take-Off (FATO) buffer zone centred on RW 01/19 has been established in order to provide safe separation between rotary and fixed-wing aircraft and pilots must remain clear of the FATO buffer zone when instructed.
The only real lesson to be learned is that if you attempt to operate a light aircraft in a manner for which you have not been trained, you become your own test pilot. Taxiing at high speed on a runway can turn the aircraft into a lethal wheelbarrow with exactly the same stability characteristics as a wheelbarrow when it ultimately groundloops....
To carry passengers, a pilot must have flown 3 take-offs and landings in the previous 90 days.
To validate his Single Engine Piston Class Rating, a pilot may revalidate by proficiency check in the last 3 months of the 24 month rating validity period. Or, if he chooses to do so by experience, in the second 12 month period of the 24 month rating validity period, he must complete 12 hours, of which 6 must be as PIC and 1 must be a training flight with an instructor.
Most of us in the GA world welcomed these increased training and recency requirements. Beforehand it was just 5 hours in 13 months with no requirement for any flying training at all. PPL pilots could fly for 40 years or more without ever having any refresher training.
Also Safety Sense Leaflet 26 - Visiting Military Aerodromes is now freely available in LASORS.
Benson has an excellent RW/light aircraft segregation policy. Basically,a 180m Final Approach and Take-Off (FATO) buffer zone centred on RW 01/19 has been established in order to provide safe separation between rotary and fixed-wing aircraft and pilots must remain clear of the FATO buffer zone when instructed.
The only real lesson to be learned is that if you attempt to operate a light aircraft in a manner for which you have not been trained, you become your own test pilot. Taxiing at high speed on a runway can turn the aircraft into a lethal wheelbarrow with exactly the same stability characteristics as a wheelbarrow when it ultimately groundloops....
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Nov 2005 at 15:25.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the answer to the mystery.
I've been told the claim was for £10 million claculated on the Cessna pilot earning more than a million pounds a year.
If the family could prove the military caused the crash they would have got £10 million. If the military could prove the crash was nothing to do with the Sea King the family would have got nothing. The Sea King might have spooked the Cessna pilot but he reacted way OTT and instead of just stopping tried a go around and screwed up so a 50/50 split £5million was a compromise and nobody has to take a big all or nothing risk trying the case in court.
At first the family tried to claim the Sea King downwash blew the Cessna off the runway but that idea was dead in the water when even their own expert agreed with the military expert it was too far away for that.
Their lawyers hired an "aviation expert" a retired Air Force pilot to say it was all the military's fault and try to get the AAIB to change their report but they wouldn't. Hats off to your AAIB for not being pressurised by the hired gun.
The RAF Board of Investigators decided the SK probably distracted the Cessna but that shouldn't have made him go out of control and crash. Then an Air Chief Marshall decided it was all the fault of the SK crew and the Cessna pilot wasn't to blame at all. Sir John Dale, same guy as blamed the Chinook pilots in the Scotch crash.
I've been told the claim was for £10 million claculated on the Cessna pilot earning more than a million pounds a year.
If the family could prove the military caused the crash they would have got £10 million. If the military could prove the crash was nothing to do with the Sea King the family would have got nothing. The Sea King might have spooked the Cessna pilot but he reacted way OTT and instead of just stopping tried a go around and screwed up so a 50/50 split £5million was a compromise and nobody has to take a big all or nothing risk trying the case in court.
At first the family tried to claim the Sea King downwash blew the Cessna off the runway but that idea was dead in the water when even their own expert agreed with the military expert it was too far away for that.
Their lawyers hired an "aviation expert" a retired Air Force pilot to say it was all the military's fault and try to get the AAIB to change their report but they wouldn't. Hats off to your AAIB for not being pressurised by the hired gun.
The RAF Board of Investigators decided the SK probably distracted the Cessna but that shouldn't have made him go out of control and crash. Then an Air Chief Marshall decided it was all the fault of the SK crew and the Cessna pilot wasn't to blame at all. Sir John Dale, same guy as blamed the Chinook pilots in the Scotch crash.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bronx, you have just opened a huge can of worms!!!! Do you have any proof of the £10m claim and the involvement of Sir John Dale? This would show an "anti-aircrew" bias on behalf of the ACM.
Indeed. If what you say is really true, then surely that would have totally undermined any defence against the claim?
I presume you mean Day, by the way, not 'Dale'.
I presume you mean Day, by the way, not 'Dale'.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oldfella wrote
The AAIB report also states
and
Perhaps those statements, the £10m claim and the PR issues explain the MOD's decision to compromise? There's been no admission of liability.
Ian
There's no need for speculation as to the cause or results of the accident as there is an AAIB report - helicopter not involved.
After the runway excursion the aircraft was possibly affected by the rotor downwash from a Sea King helicopter positioned near the runway and air taxiing to take off.
The outflow of air from the Sea King's downwash possibly affected the Cessna, when it became airborne and crossed vehicle access 'M'. The turbulence created by the downwash could have added to the Cessna pilot's control difficulties.
Ian
Last edited by IanSeager; 20th Nov 2005 at 22:41.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could be right but this was "After the runway excursion."
The Cessna was out of control long before then.
He did a very high speed taxi after landing and then before he got anywhere near any downwash he'd swung to the right, then careered out of control off the left side of the runway and smashed through a runway light before getting airborne so sharply the Cessna tail scraped the grass.
It seems any downwash from the SK was very weak by the time the Cessna went through it and if he hadn't gone off the runway he wouldn't have encountered in anyway.
From what I've heard, it would have hit either a hangar or the Tower next to it if he hadn't stalled in - with probably more deaths.
Another thing which struck me was that he had his throttle friction set so tight the AAIB had difficulty pulling it back. Maybe that explains why he didn't or couldn't just stop if he was worried about the Sea King.
What possesses someone to set the throttle friction so tight so close to the ground?
You may well be right about the MoD PR aspect - MoD fighting widow and children etc.
Still, at least the 50% settlement shows the family's lawyers realised he played a major part in his own demise whatever they say to journos. If it was as clear-cut as they make out they wouldn't have given away £5million.
Funny how they forgot to mention they'd settled for half when trumpeting the £5million to the Press.
If what Bronx says about the ACM's comments is correct, it looks like Sir John Day shot the RAF in the foot again.
The Cessna was out of control long before then.
He did a very high speed taxi after landing and then before he got anywhere near any downwash he'd swung to the right, then careered out of control off the left side of the runway and smashed through a runway light before getting airborne so sharply the Cessna tail scraped the grass.
It seems any downwash from the SK was very weak by the time the Cessna went through it and if he hadn't gone off the runway he wouldn't have encountered in anyway.
From what I've heard, it would have hit either a hangar or the Tower next to it if he hadn't stalled in - with probably more deaths.
Another thing which struck me was that he had his throttle friction set so tight the AAIB had difficulty pulling it back. Maybe that explains why he didn't or couldn't just stop if he was worried about the Sea King.
What possesses someone to set the throttle friction so tight so close to the ground?
You may well be right about the MoD PR aspect - MoD fighting widow and children etc.
Still, at least the 50% settlement shows the family's lawyers realised he played a major part in his own demise whatever they say to journos. If it was as clear-cut as they make out they wouldn't have given away £5million.
Funny how they forgot to mention they'd settled for half when trumpeting the £5million to the Press.
If what Bronx says about the ACM's comments is correct, it looks like Sir John Day shot the RAF in the foot again.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MOD have presumable done a cost v risk exercise. If they were to let the family go the whole way and claim for £10m then it would have involved a huge amount ion court costs and lost earnings from several MOD employees, and the total bill would be a lot more than the £10m. So the £5m is a 'fixed payment' to prevent having to pay any more.
Also if the family were (as has been suggested) considering private actions against teh individuals, then this £5m may prevent them from going down this route, therefore the MOD is actually paying out to protect its own. If this is the case then perhaps this is the best way forward to close the matter once and for all.
However, if this proves to be another case of a senior officer thinking he knows better than a properly conducted inquiry (of course , he is entitled to an opinion) and then forcing MOD to react thus making money out of it... then something really ought to be done.
Also if the family were (as has been suggested) considering private actions against teh individuals, then this £5m may prevent them from going down this route, therefore the MOD is actually paying out to protect its own. If this is the case then perhaps this is the best way forward to close the matter once and for all.
However, if this proves to be another case of a senior officer thinking he knows better than a properly conducted inquiry (of course , he is entitled to an opinion) and then forcing MOD to react thus making money out of it... then something really ought to be done.
Sir John Day most certainly isn't a helicopter hater, he was my first Sqn OC on 72 in the early 80's and was a very good pilot - I think it is wrong to blame him, especially without any evidence.
The original RAF BOI essentialy rubberstamped the AAIB report but was returned to the BOI because it was felt they hadn't explored all the military angles sufficiently. The second BOI appeared to be a bit of a hatchet job (possibly because of the cockpit crew personalities). The captain of the SK was posted and then grounded through stress and has had to wait until the final BOI to be exonerated - I am sure the news that the MOD have rolled over and paid out anyway will seem like another guilty verdict.
If it is the only way the family will get any cash then the MOD's decision seems mitigated but I am sure they could survive on a lot less than £5 million.
The original RAF BOI essentialy rubberstamped the AAIB report but was returned to the BOI because it was felt they hadn't explored all the military angles sufficiently. The second BOI appeared to be a bit of a hatchet job (possibly because of the cockpit crew personalities). The captain of the SK was posted and then grounded through stress and has had to wait until the final BOI to be exonerated - I am sure the news that the MOD have rolled over and paid out anyway will seem like another guilty verdict.
If it is the only way the family will get any cash then the MOD's decision seems mitigated but I am sure they could survive on a lot less than £5 million.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree about Sir John Day. With regard to the Mull crash, remember a lot of the dead were Special Branch officers and family men with dependents to boot. It's been done to death elsewhere but when they're gone, they're gone leaving the wives and kids behind. I would hope that come judgement day, I would be able to put the welfare of 20 odd families above that of my 'good name', even if I had been in the right. I have spoken to Mrs Monty about this and she is also happy with a 'Monty cocked it up' epitaph, provided the families are looked after.
One must look to the living. If IMC below SALT is culpably negligent (despite the conspiracy theories), this allows compensation to be sought from MOD.
Those SB guys were 'on our side'. Being Security Forces and living outside the wire in those days put you and your family at significant risk. I would rather millions of pounds be spread around the families of men who put their lives on the line for HMG than a single family who have suffered a tragedy which cannot really be pinned on MOD.
Anybody know what the families of the Mull crash received, if any? Not £5 million a piece, I'd wager. Meanwhile, those snakes McGuinness and Adams draw full MP wages and allowances (over £100,000 a year each) from HMG whilst not setting foot in Westminster.
Justice? I think not.
One must look to the living. If IMC below SALT is culpably negligent (despite the conspiracy theories), this allows compensation to be sought from MOD.
Those SB guys were 'on our side'. Being Security Forces and living outside the wire in those days put you and your family at significant risk. I would rather millions of pounds be spread around the families of men who put their lives on the line for HMG than a single family who have suffered a tragedy which cannot really be pinned on MOD.
Anybody know what the families of the Mull crash received, if any? Not £5 million a piece, I'd wager. Meanwhile, those snakes McGuinness and Adams draw full MP wages and allowances (over £100,000 a year each) from HMG whilst not setting foot in Westminster.
Justice? I think not.
Three BOIs, crab?
(The Rubberstamp, the hatchet job and the final one that finally exonerated the pilot?)
That sounds 'unusual'?
It seems obscene that expediency (paying out £5m in unwarranted damages) took precedence over truth (that no damages were deserved) in an effort to avoid the risk of a higher financial penalty.
If anyone knows the SK captain, please buy him a beer on my behalf.
Flying Lawyer,
Please check your PMs.
JN
(The Rubberstamp, the hatchet job and the final one that finally exonerated the pilot?)
That sounds 'unusual'?
It seems obscene that expediency (paying out £5m in unwarranted damages) took precedence over truth (that no damages were deserved) in an effort to avoid the risk of a higher financial penalty.
If anyone knows the SK captain, please buy him a beer on my behalf.
Flying Lawyer,
Please check your PMs.
JN
JN
Two BOIs not three in this accident, and it's not unusual for a BOI to be reconvened if the 3 reviewing officers (usually the Station Commander, AOC and CINC) believe that further investigation is warranted in another area or deeper into an existing area. This is not irregular as the AOC issues the Terms of Reference for the BOI team in the first place.
What is interesting is that the first BOI was one of the 1st after "non-apportionment of blame" BOI terms of reference were to be used and the old-school "hang-em up" BOI brigade was still potentially prevalent. Hence, a stressed out SAR crew and ATCO anxiously awaiting a conclusion. However, that is conjecture.
Whether the Sea King was more than a 'potential' distraction can never be proved either way. However, the AAIB milked the GPS and it showed the Cessna to be doing 65kts(+/- 4kts) for a significant period prior to the loss of control on the ground (there is a high potential for 'wheel-barrowing' in tricycle undercarriaged aircraft which rotates around that speed). The smallest of distractions could have caused him to lose control and once he lost it he was unlikely to recover from the fast ensuing ground-loop. The Cessna then over-rotated (as already mentioned from the tail-strike impact point observed on the side of the runway) and then stalled shortly after take-off. That said if he had been taxying at a more sedate speed then it wouldn't have happened, however, if the Sea King had been manoeuvring more sedately then the same might apply. Furthermore, had the Cessna pilot closed the throttle and used the toe-brakes then the same applies. I guess that recently all parties agreed that the Sea King's 'potential' should have had a bearing on the pay-out; after all £5m is a lot of money but it will never replace the children's father and the wife's husband - a very sad day indeed.
LJ
Two BOIs not three in this accident, and it's not unusual for a BOI to be reconvened if the 3 reviewing officers (usually the Station Commander, AOC and CINC) believe that further investigation is warranted in another area or deeper into an existing area. This is not irregular as the AOC issues the Terms of Reference for the BOI team in the first place.
What is interesting is that the first BOI was one of the 1st after "non-apportionment of blame" BOI terms of reference were to be used and the old-school "hang-em up" BOI brigade was still potentially prevalent. Hence, a stressed out SAR crew and ATCO anxiously awaiting a conclusion. However, that is conjecture.
Whether the Sea King was more than a 'potential' distraction can never be proved either way. However, the AAIB milked the GPS and it showed the Cessna to be doing 65kts(+/- 4kts) for a significant period prior to the loss of control on the ground (there is a high potential for 'wheel-barrowing' in tricycle undercarriaged aircraft which rotates around that speed). The smallest of distractions could have caused him to lose control and once he lost it he was unlikely to recover from the fast ensuing ground-loop. The Cessna then over-rotated (as already mentioned from the tail-strike impact point observed on the side of the runway) and then stalled shortly after take-off. That said if he had been taxying at a more sedate speed then it wouldn't have happened, however, if the Sea King had been manoeuvring more sedately then the same might apply. Furthermore, had the Cessna pilot closed the throttle and used the toe-brakes then the same applies. I guess that recently all parties agreed that the Sea King's 'potential' should have had a bearing on the pay-out; after all £5m is a lot of money but it will never replace the children's father and the wife's husband - a very sad day indeed.
LJ
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Boo Hoo.
A very wealthy family gets £5 million off the MOD for an amateur pilot who f*cked up.
Stephen Restorick was a young lad who had his head shot away by a b*stard coward who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag. Northern Ireland during the 'cease fire' for those who don't know.
No wife, no kids, no second home in Cornwall. 20 years old, but I'll stand corrected. Bravery medal in the post. He was serving his country, not keeping some regional airport open.
Anybody know what his family got in compemnsation?
A very wealthy family gets £5 million off the MOD for an amateur pilot who f*cked up.
Stephen Restorick was a young lad who had his head shot away by a b*stard coward who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag. Northern Ireland during the 'cease fire' for those who don't know.
No wife, no kids, no second home in Cornwall. 20 years old, but I'll stand corrected. Bravery medal in the post. He was serving his country, not keeping some regional airport open.
Anybody know what his family got in compemnsation?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the Cessna taxiing at 65kts (+/- 4kts) was far in excess of a safe recommended taxi speed..
From my PPL training, at the speed mentioned, thats almost t/o speed (wind direction dependant) !!!
Not the normal practise one would assume ???
Even groundlooping a glider at <30kts is scary...!!!
No amount of money can ever compensate from someones loss. However, one would hope that the AAIB recommendations now ensure taxi speeds are looked at more closely..
Will the SK Capt now claim for PTSD at being grounded etc....??
Will the powers that be even consder his claim..??
Another major dent in the defence budget, as no doubt the cost of insurance underwriting will go up...!!
From my PPL training, at the speed mentioned, thats almost t/o speed (wind direction dependant) !!!
Not the normal practise one would assume ???
Even groundlooping a glider at <30kts is scary...!!!
No amount of money can ever compensate from someones loss. However, one would hope that the AAIB recommendations now ensure taxi speeds are looked at more closely..
Will the SK Capt now claim for PTSD at being grounded etc....??
Will the powers that be even consder his claim..??
Another major dent in the defence budget, as no doubt the cost of insurance underwriting will go up...!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
I saw your PM.
It's up to the MoD to decide whether to issue a statement concerning the settlement. It's not usually done in such circumstances. It's also for the MoD to choose whether to correct the one-sided nonsense given to the Press last Friday by the Claimant's solicitor for his own motives or to rise above it. It's not for me to do so, even 'off the record'. I won't deny I enjoyed listening to the Judge yesterday morning saying in no uncertain terms what he thought of the solicitor's thoroughly unprofessional behaviour. (BTW, although the barrister's written argument was given to the Press, it wasn't the barrister who gave it.)
It's been pointed out that the Claimants settled for half the amount claimed. In fatal accident cases, the amount claimed is calculated on the deceased's income and other factors. It doesn't need inside information to work out why the full claim wasn't pursued. The answer will be obvious to anyone who's read the AAIB Report.
I saw your PM.
It's up to the MoD to decide whether to issue a statement concerning the settlement. It's not usually done in such circumstances. It's also for the MoD to choose whether to correct the one-sided nonsense given to the Press last Friday by the Claimant's solicitor for his own motives or to rise above it. It's not for me to do so, even 'off the record'. I won't deny I enjoyed listening to the Judge yesterday morning saying in no uncertain terms what he thought of the solicitor's thoroughly unprofessional behaviour. (BTW, although the barrister's written argument was given to the Press, it wasn't the barrister who gave it.)
It's been pointed out that the Claimants settled for half the amount claimed. In fatal accident cases, the amount claimed is calculated on the deceased's income and other factors. It doesn't need inside information to work out why the full claim wasn't pursued. The answer will be obvious to anyone who's read the AAIB Report.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd Nov 2005 at 12:22.
Gentleman Aviator
Two BOIs not three in this accident, and it's not unusual for a BOI to be reconvened if the 3 reviewing officers (usually the Station Commander, AOC and CINC) believe that further investigation is warranted in another area or deeper into an existing area. This is not irregular as the AOC issues the Terms of Reference for the BOI team in the first place.
... and at the risk of removing ammo from the Day-bashers (who can frankly get tiresome at times - even when they get the name right), wouldn't BB have been C-in-C by the time the BOI was finally signed off??
Last edited by teeteringhead; 22nd Nov 2005 at 12:37.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hebra Outerdies
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
Think you will find the revalidation for a PPL states "including an hours flight with an instructor"
It doesen't actually state that it must be a flight where the Pilot is under instruction.
Strange I know and don't happen to agree with it either but it just shows how slack the revalidation process is.
Think you will find the revalidation for a PPL states "including an hours flight with an instructor"
It doesen't actually state that it must be a flight where the Pilot is under instruction.
Strange I know and don't happen to agree with it either but it just shows how slack the revalidation process is.