Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: england
Age: 89
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human Error
I agree Mike but they can comment on human error as a factor. I am sure that BALPA will be a source of comfort to Andy let's hope this does not drag on too long both for Andy and the families and victims of this sad accident.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
http://www.aaib.gov.mn/uploads/50ff3...p4_cons_en.pdf
3.2.6 The causes should be formulated in a way
which, as much as practicable, minimizes the implication of
blame or liability. Nevertheless, the accident investigation
authority should not refrain from reporting a cause merely
because blame or liability might be inferred from the
statement of that cause.
which, as much as practicable, minimizes the implication of
blame or liability. Nevertheless, the accident investigation
authority should not refrain from reporting a cause merely
because blame or liability might be inferred from the
statement of that cause.
The title of this thread continues to trouble me a little - given the scale of the accident, it seems to dwell on the aeroplane rather than the human tragedy. Might "something like "Accident at Shoreham Airshow" be more appropriate. Late in the day I know, and original title probably OK until the scale of loss of life became apparent.
Originally Posted by jet fan
People could also be well advised to man-up and own up when they know they are in the wrong.
You declare yourself as "jet fan". What a shame your enthusiasm doesn't stretch as far as the people that fly them.
If your comment is in context with the subject of the thread, then perhaps you would like to explain who you think needs to "man up".
Originally Posted by Jayand
How utterly ridiculous, if the AAIB find evidence that a pilot was at fault then they should be able to simply say so.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, Courtney, I agree.
I am absolutely disgusted with the way some so-called aviation enthusiasts have ridiculed Andy, without knowing the full facts. I am also disgusted with the media. He appears to be physically back on his feet, but anybody with half a brain would understand that mentally, he still has many years of recovery time, if he ever manages to recover at all. That doesn't stop the media from trying to be the first to publish a pathetic story.
I am absolutely disgusted with the way some so-called aviation enthusiasts have ridiculed Andy, without knowing the full facts. I am also disgusted with the media. He appears to be physically back on his feet, but anybody with half a brain would understand that mentally, he still has many years of recovery time, if he ever manages to recover at all. That doesn't stop the media from trying to be the first to publish a pathetic story.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be cautious when new people register with sites such as these with obviously polarised views on this kind of issue. I don't wish to be unkind, but this does happen at times like this. Maybe another reason for being guarded about careless opinions.
Courtney Mil, I agree with both your points, but I suspect you will either need to explain your points (again) to those you quote or expand on your post. Most of us get it, but the visitors here may not.
Good luck.
Courtney Mil, I agree with both your points, but I suspect you will either need to explain your points (again) to those you quote or expand on your post. Most of us get it, but the visitors here may not.
Good luck.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In today's world few people hold their hands up.
In this case, there will be many factors contributing to this accident and holding up one's hand prematurely could actually, in many people's minds, inhibit determination of the most likely cause.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get it fine Pontious, my point is that I believe findings from an investigation shouldn't be dressed up, why not point fingers if that is their opinion, based on their findings.
At some point the findings and the investigators maybe called upon and used in court proceedings, they could be asked from their findings if they considered X,Y OR Z to be at fault. Why not just say so in their report?
At some point the findings and the investigators maybe called upon and used in court proceedings, they could be asked from their findings if they considered X,Y OR Z to be at fault. Why not just say so in their report?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Jayland, would not a declaration of blame by an expert official body not be taken by an impartial jury as de facto evidence and thus create undue bias?
Jayand
My understanding is that the AAIB do not attribute blame and are very careful not to do so. They report the circumstances that led to the accident and may make recommendations but they are not, repeat not, regulators. IMHO that is why they are trusted by the professional aviation community.
The role of the CAA and the police is quite different and for good reason. What has caused disquiet is the idea that evidence gathered by the AAIB for its technical investigation may be used in a prosecution. This has been discussed elsewhere on pprune at great detail if you are genuinely interested. Sorry for the thread drift.
Back on the thread. It's welcome news that AH is recovering. I recently flew with an ex colleague of his and he spoke very highly of him. Not forgetting the families of those also affected by this awful tragedy one of whom is a friend of a friend.
BBK
My understanding is that the AAIB do not attribute blame and are very careful not to do so. They report the circumstances that led to the accident and may make recommendations but they are not, repeat not, regulators. IMHO that is why they are trusted by the professional aviation community.
The role of the CAA and the police is quite different and for good reason. What has caused disquiet is the idea that evidence gathered by the AAIB for its technical investigation may be used in a prosecution. This has been discussed elsewhere on pprune at great detail if you are genuinely interested. Sorry for the thread drift.
Back on the thread. It's welcome news that AH is recovering. I recently flew with an ex colleague of his and he spoke very highly of him. Not forgetting the families of those also affected by this awful tragedy one of whom is a friend of a friend.
BBK
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PN
Jayland, would not a declaration of blame by an expert official body not be taken by an impartial jury as de facto evidence and thus create undue bias?
*I am not suggesting that this is the case for Andy, as I do not know enough of the facts to make such a sweeping statement, however, a person has the right to a fair trial. This then gives the families of victims some form of closure when the person concerned has been dealt with in the best way possible, and there was no doubt that they were guilty.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, say for example then a civil or crown court case was brought againtst a pilot involved in a fatal crash, who gives expert evidence to the court? Would it not be the AAIB? and if so how do they answer a question of liability?
If a crash was and I'm talking hypothetically here caused entirely by pilot error how do the AAIB word there report without saying as such??
I can understand the prejudicial worries, but if that is the case then surely they should say nothing until court, unless court action isn't needed.
If a crash was and I'm talking hypothetically here caused entirely by pilot error how do the AAIB word there report without saying as such??
I can understand the prejudicial worries, but if that is the case then surely they should say nothing until court, unless court action isn't needed.
and if so how do they answer a question of liability?
CG
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
In a report you would present the facts and if inevitable that might appear open and shut case - the undercarriage was found to be fully serviceable and there was no evidence of malfunction.
In court "I put it to you, is it possible the pilot failed to lower the undercarriage?"
"Yes"
"No further questions your honour"
It would then be left to the defence to elicit many alternative explanations.
The difference is cross examination in open forum.
In court "I put it to you, is it possible the pilot failed to lower the undercarriage?"
"Yes"
"No further questions your honour"
It would then be left to the defence to elicit many alternative explanations.
The difference is cross examination in open forum.
Hypothetically, what happens if that pilot decides to save the AAIB a lot of work and tells them, "I completely forgot to lower the undercarriage, don't know what I was thinking"? Or if a mechanic states that he omitted to tighten a hydraulic connector correctly, causing the undercarriage to malfunction?
Does the report merely state that there was no evidence of malfunction (in the first case) or that the connector was examined and "appeared" to have been incorrectly tightened?
Not suggesting any parallels with the cause of this incident, but genuinely curious as to how far the AAIB go to spare the blushes of an individual who admits some liability?
Does the report merely state that there was no evidence of malfunction (in the first case) or that the connector was examined and "appeared" to have been incorrectly tightened?
Not suggesting any parallels with the cause of this incident, but genuinely curious as to how far the AAIB go to spare the blushes of an individual who admits some liability?
Yes, you are missing something.
Finding, the aircraft landed with the landing gear retracted.
Finding, the pilot did not lower the landing gear.
Finding, the pilot was distracted by the interview with HR just before flight to discuss his sickness record as part of the redundancy selection process etc etc
You get the drift...
Finding, the aircraft landed with the landing gear retracted.
Finding, the pilot did not lower the landing gear.
Finding, the pilot was distracted by the interview with HR just before flight to discuss his sickness record as part of the redundancy selection process etc etc
You get the drift...