Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
The video of the Southport display is in the public domain. It is there for all to see and has been for a while -as have the comments from the display managers on the day. Similarly, the Shoreham display incident has been seen by millions and commented on widely. There have been no arrests or charges so presumably the media (which nowadays seems to include social media), are free to comment as they wish. I guess, should it go to trial, FL and his colleagues will, as they have had to do for years, just exhort the jury to put anything they have read or seen from their minds - much as juries have had to do in the recent 'celebrity' abuse trials - and as always, concentrate on evidence as presented.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP and Mach Two:
There you go, you have both just proved the point I was trying to make. You've not let the stated facts get in the way of the story you want to write about, and neither of you appear to have read fully my post before you went to print!
It may have been an inconvenience prior to your attack and critisism of me, but my opening line is pretty crystal clear, is it not? And yes Mach Two, I do tend to frequent the biz jets forum (that's what I do now), but nowhere there, or on any other forum, will you have seen me apportion blame or criticize any pilot, either before or even after the BOI or findings!
What you both missed by a wide margin in your haste to apportion blame in my direction was that I was pointing out what is a natural human behavior. My statement was factually correct - it was not in any way criticism of the pilot involved in this discussion!
There you go, you have both just proved the point I was trying to make. You've not let the stated facts get in the way of the story you want to write about, and neither of you appear to have read fully my post before you went to print!
I agree in part with FL. Sure, it's not fair to apportion blame until the result of an investigation or trail (if appropriate) comes in.
What you both missed by a wide margin in your haste to apportion blame in my direction was that I was pointing out what is a natural human behavior. My statement was factually correct - it was not in any way criticism of the pilot involved in this discussion!
Well, I read your post in full. It said it's not fair to apportion blame without all the facts, but it's human nature and you're going to do it anyway.
What I didn't see was anyone making an "attack" on you.
What I didn't see was anyone making an "attack" on you.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why anyone in the Sussex Police thought it appropriate to disclose that they are investigating an earlier incident knowing, unless he/she was a naive half-wit, that there was a very high risk the information would be leaked to the press and, if it was, that the press would certainly publicise the earlier incident."
at least these days they're less likely to take backhanders from the newspapers when they do it
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please excuse a process question being asked here.
What is the process when a Flying Display Director has reason to question the competence / safety / fitness/ whatever of a pilot who has displayed in one of his displays, to use the vernacular the FDD decides to Red Card the pilot?
Obviously a Red Card does not lead to an AAIB inquiry, there has been no accident, is there a independent review of the pilot's fitness to display, or is it just a local event?
What is the process when a Flying Display Director has reason to question the competence / safety / fitness/ whatever of a pilot who has displayed in one of his displays, to use the vernacular the FDD decides to Red Card the pilot?
Obviously a Red Card does not lead to an AAIB inquiry, there has been no accident, is there a independent review of the pilot's fitness to display, or is it just a local event?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with Flying Lawyer's stance on discussion is that virtually EVERY "accident" whether that be in the air or in a car could possibly lead to a prosecution for some violation of law.
So that means following the above logic we can pretty well shut down PPRUNE and every other web forum as we would be not allowed to discuss incidents or accidents - any of them until both the AAIB report is out and the police/DPP have stated there are not going to prosecute: whether that was the pilot, the CAA, the maintenance or anyone else.
This accident in particular has been and is being discussed in virtually every forum I know - even on ISP forums plus the non UK ones outside of UK legal jurisdiction.
As regards any criticism of the pilot - well sorry, but the AAIB let the cat out of the bag good and proper as to the direction they were looking in their Special Bulletin S3/2015 of the 4th Sept 2015.
This gave the speed of the aircraft inverted at the top of the "loop", and a pretty good estimate of the altitude. They mentioned internal cameras showing the instrument panel and further stated that to date no abnormal indications have been identified and that throughout the flight the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs.
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...nter-t7-g-bxfi
So that means following the above logic we can pretty well shut down PPRUNE and every other web forum as we would be not allowed to discuss incidents or accidents - any of them until both the AAIB report is out and the police/DPP have stated there are not going to prosecute: whether that was the pilot, the CAA, the maintenance or anyone else.
This accident in particular has been and is being discussed in virtually every forum I know - even on ISP forums plus the non UK ones outside of UK legal jurisdiction.
As regards any criticism of the pilot - well sorry, but the AAIB let the cat out of the bag good and proper as to the direction they were looking in their Special Bulletin S3/2015 of the 4th Sept 2015.
This gave the speed of the aircraft inverted at the top of the "loop", and a pretty good estimate of the altitude. They mentioned internal cameras showing the instrument panel and further stated that to date no abnormal indications have been identified and that throughout the flight the aircraft appeared to be responding to the pilot's control inputs.
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...nter-t7-g-bxfi
PN - you wrote
Perish the thought, but I think you may be a bit behind the times. The British Air Display Association (BADA) includes amongst its members most flying display directors (FDDs). Next week BADA holds its pre-season symposium, in conjunction with the CAA and the Military Aviation Authority (MAA). The post-Shoreham situation and what the CAA is doing about it will undoubtedly take up much of the two days of the symposium, and FDDs will be expecting to learn a lot about how things are going to be in future.
Your idea of military bosses whispering hints in each other's shell-likes is also a little out of date. The MAA is deeply involved in air show safety, and military display flying is regulated in minute detail.
In any case, although there are formally-constituted military display teams - and they appear at shows of all kinds - there are almost no military air shows left in the UK. Last year there was only one RAF air show, and that was Cosford. There was also RIAT - run by the RAF Charitable Trust, but it does come under MAA's aegis. And there were also, of course, the Navy shows at Yeovilton and Culdrose.
airsound
AFAIK there is no central organisation of display directors though I imagine there is informal discussion between organizers of good displays and bad ones, good pilots and bad (and speaking from experience I am not referring to their flying - no names no pack drill). In the military it will probably be boss to boss. In the civie world a dry up of bookings.
Your idea of military bosses whispering hints in each other's shell-likes is also a little out of date. The MAA is deeply involved in air show safety, and military display flying is regulated in minute detail.
In any case, although there are formally-constituted military display teams - and they appear at shows of all kinds - there are almost no military air shows left in the UK. Last year there was only one RAF air show, and that was Cosford. There was also RIAT - run by the RAF Charitable Trust, but it does come under MAA's aegis. And there were also, of course, the Navy shows at Yeovilton and Culdrose.
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 4th Feb 2016 at 21:03. Reason: adding in the Navy
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The niceties of the relevant law are a secondary consideration. The primary objective should be to avoid any risk of potential jurors being influenced, consciously or subconsciously, by what is posted in our forums.
That applies whether what they read is accurate or, as is sometimes the case, utter nonsense - whether posted by experienced professional pilots or members of the Armchair Accident Investigation Bureau.
deefer dog
It is human nature to do all sorts of things, some good and some bad. If you cannot see for yourself any reason not to add to the risk of unfairness then there is nothing I could say to persuade you.
The fact that we are legally entitled to do something does not mean that it is necessarily a responsible thing to do.
clareprop
This may come as a surprise to you but, after 41 years working in the criminal legal system, I was well aware of the direction to juries to ignore media reports when I posted my concerns.
I hope that the direction is effective and believe that juries usually take their duties seriously but given (a) that jury discussions take place in private, are not recorded and remain confidential and (b) the weaknesses inherent in human nature, there is no way of knowing if they all abide by the direction.
dsc810
I disagree but, even if what you say was correct, in this instance there is not some vague theoretical risk. We know that there is an ongoing police investigation which might lead to a prosecution.
Your idea of "logic", not mine.
There is a theoretical risk but it is highly unlikely that many, if any, potential jurors read AAIB reports.
AAIB findings are not used nor referred to in criminal trials.
Given that PPRuNe is widely known as, and often referred to in the media as, a 'professional pilots forum' I believe we have a corresponding responsibility to behave responsibly. More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum.
That applies whether what they read is accurate or, as is sometimes the case, utter nonsense - whether posted by experienced professional pilots or members of the Armchair Accident Investigation Bureau.
deefer dog
It is human nature to do all sorts of things, some good and some bad. If you cannot see for yourself any reason not to add to the risk of unfairness then there is nothing I could say to persuade you.
The fact that we are legally entitled to do something does not mean that it is necessarily a responsible thing to do.
clareprop
This may come as a surprise to you but, after 41 years working in the criminal legal system, I was well aware of the direction to juries to ignore media reports when I posted my concerns.
I hope that the direction is effective and believe that juries usually take their duties seriously but given (a) that jury discussions take place in private, are not recorded and remain confidential and (b) the weaknesses inherent in human nature, there is no way of knowing if they all abide by the direction.
dsc810
The trouble with Flying Lawyer's stance on discussion is that virtually EVERY "accident" whether that be in the air or in a car could possibly lead to a prosecution for some violation of law.
So that means following the above logic
the AAIB let the cat out of the bag good and proper as to the direction they were looking in their Special Bulletin S3/2015 of the 4th Sept 2015.
AAIB findings are not used nor referred to in criminal trials.
Given that PPRuNe is widely known as, and often referred to in the media as, a 'professional pilots forum' I believe we have a corresponding responsibility to behave responsibly. More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum.
I disagree but, even if what you say was correct, in this instance there is not some vague theoretical risk. We know that there is an ongoing police investigation which might lead to a prosecution.
Your idea of "logic", not mine. There is a theoretical risk but it is highly unlikely that many, if any, potential jurors read AAIB reports.
AAIB findings are not used nor referred to in criminal trials.
Given that PPRuNe is widely known as, and often referred to in the media as, a 'professional pilots forum' I believe we have a corresponding responsibility to behave responsibly. More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum.
Your idea of "logic", not mine. There is a theoretical risk but it is highly unlikely that many, if any, potential jurors read AAIB reports.
AAIB findings are not used nor referred to in criminal trials.
Given that PPRuNe is widely known as, and often referred to in the media as, a 'professional pilots forum' I believe we have a corresponding responsibility to behave responsibly. More weight is likely to be attached to what is posted here than in some enthusiasts'/spotters' forum.
It is unavoidable for the jury to be unaware of what is reported, it is for them to remain impartial and consider only what goes on inside the courtroom, and not to seek information from external sources.
You cannot silence the public and take away their liberties... just ensure a fair trial and a verdict based on fair hearing, not what is or isn't in the public domain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freedom of expression
Is a great thing according to most.
For sure there will be cases when this freedom is pushed beyond the bounds of decency.
However, for me far better that than to remove the freedom.
For sure there will be cases when this freedom is pushed beyond the bounds of decency.
However, for me far better that than to remove the freedom.
You are, of course, quite right, comedyjock - and I apologise to the Navy. I should have said 'RAF air shows', not military air shows. Appropriate changes made.
Sorry!
airsound
Sorry!
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 4th Feb 2016 at 21:07.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not possibly disagree more with flying lawyer...we are privileged to live a free society with free speech and the internet has extended that. To what degree that is moderated is a matter personal judgement, forum moderation and the laws of defamation, which apply here.
The point about jurors is specious in the extreme. Jurors are now routinely warned about looking stuff up on the internet (done jury duty recently, it is part of the pre-briefing procedure) and accounts of where jurors have erred are already widely known.
Jurors jailed for contempt of court over internet use - BBC News
If jurors have pre-knowledge of a case they are required to declare it before the trial starts and they are excused. If they research anywhere after the trial starts they have committed a criminal offence.
Finally, the discussion of accidents wherever, whenever, is primarily for education of the aviation community, to promote flight safety and to save lives. And I'm afraid in most cases in my book that is way more important that the hugely unlikely prospect of somehow adversley effecting someone's "rights".
The point about jurors is specious in the extreme. Jurors are now routinely warned about looking stuff up on the internet (done jury duty recently, it is part of the pre-briefing procedure) and accounts of where jurors have erred are already widely known.
Jurors jailed for contempt of court over internet use - BBC News
If jurors have pre-knowledge of a case they are required to declare it before the trial starts and they are excused. If they research anywhere after the trial starts they have committed a criminal offence.
Finally, the discussion of accidents wherever, whenever, is primarily for education of the aviation community, to promote flight safety and to save lives. And I'm afraid in most cases in my book that is way more important that the hugely unlikely prospect of somehow adversley effecting someone's "rights".
Originally Posted by dsc810
The trouble with Flying Lawyer's stance on discussion is that virtually EVERY "accident" whether that be in the air or in a car could possibly lead to a prosecution for some violation of law.
So that means following the above logic we can pretty well shut down PPRuNe and every other web forum as we would be not allowed to discuss incidents or accidents - any of them until both the AAIB report is out and the police/DPP have stated there are not going to prosecute: whether that was the pilot, the CAA, the maintenance or anyone else.
So that means following the above logic we can pretty well shut down PPRuNe and every other web forum as we would be not allowed to discuss incidents or accidents - any of them until both the AAIB report is out and the police/DPP have stated there are not going to prosecute: whether that was the pilot, the CAA, the maintenance or anyone else.
I see no problem with discussing anything here, we can all choose which threads and fora to read. I stand by two points, in addition to the legal aspects:
First, an aircraft crashes with a pilot at the controls. His actions may or may not have had some influence on the outcome. In the absence of any other obvious causes, thoughts turn to the pilot screwing up. Rather than wait for the results of the forensic examination and the pilot's evidence (assuming he is able to give evidence) people with little understanding of the circumstances feel they can hide behind the anonymity of their user name and the fact that they are not actually confronting the pilot in question and announce all manner of conclusions - conclusions that may well turn out to be right, but that are completely inappropriate to declare in public at this stage. The foregoing is especially true if that 'conclusion' is posted on a forum that is known to the tabloids and may well be (often are) picked up and put into print. These 'conclusions' may also be seen by relatives and friends of people injured or killed in the crash or as a result thereof (that may include the pilot in question).
Second, I have to question the motives of people that play no active part in a forum until something bad happens and then turn up (this forum is a classic example) like circling vultures seeking out a corps to pick over. Just look back over the many pages of this thread for examples. Just look at members' posting history.
Originally Posted by Llama Farmer
You cannot silence the public and take away their liberties... just ensure a fair trial and a verdict based on fair hearing, not what is or isn't in the public domain
Originally Posted by deefer dog
However it is human nature to speculate and draw conclusions, even early ones. It's also human nature to gossip and it's been happening since the dawn of time. Small town gossip has been taking place ahead of small town court cases for years. Fair or not, that's the way it is.
I have seen too many good aircrew blamed for aircraft incidents - think of your own examples. I have seen too many incidents where the suspicion immediately falls on the aircrew only later to find that a completely unexpected factor was the cause. I see people all the time professing how wonderful our pilots (military in most instances are, but the same is true for the airlines) right up until something goes wrong and then everything changes - see numerous threads here for a start - and folk are out on the streets demanding blood. The speculative, public apportionment of blame falls into the same category.
Now you all go ahead and be armchair quarterbacks. No one here will stop you.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would just observe that if someone was reading this thread, then it highly likely to me that they will read the relevant AAIB report when it comes out.....
So a little inconsistent to be concerned about jurors possibly reading this thread but to dismiss the possibility of the AAIB report being read.
So a little inconsistent to be concerned about jurors possibly reading this thread but to dismiss the possibility of the AAIB report being read.
Great thought, but the AAIB report may not necessarily be submitted as evidence in any case and the members of a jury do not generally know what case they will be called upon to judge before they get there. So, no, most jurors don't have time to read up on a case in advance.
I doubt more than a small percentage of the U.K. population will ever read the full AAIB report when they can get all they think they need to know from the Daily Mail. They will more likely be influenced by the almost daily presentation of "facts" in their newspapers without knowing where those "facts" came from.
I doubt more than a small percentage of the U.K. population will ever read the full AAIB report when they can get all they think they need to know from the Daily Mail. They will more likely be influenced by the almost daily presentation of "facts" in their newspapers without knowing where those "facts" came from.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
Took me a while to get through your post #1029, but I get it. I don't care much about the legal aspects as they apply to posters on this thread although I agree with Flying Lawyer's position. Your take on the, what to call them, moral aspects is spot on. I doubt those concerned will pay much attention, but it was worth a shot.
TDPU this year?
Took me a while to get through your post #1029, but I get it. I don't care much about the legal aspects as they apply to posters on this thread although I agree with Flying Lawyer's position. Your take on the, what to call them, moral aspects is spot on. I doubt those concerned will pay much attention, but it was worth a shot.
TDPU this year?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's video. There's radar data. There's common sense. There's freedom of speech to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Lawyers have their own agenda, and though pigs are unlikely to fly, lawyers are another matter.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney
Exactly. The AAIB report is no more likely to be submitted in evidence than the comments here on pprune. And your point re the daily mail emphasises what I am saying. If there is a small chance that a journalist will take posts from pprune and put them into a paper, given the public interest in the Shoreham accident there is a 100% chance that the AAIB report will appear in several daily nationals, and not just the daily mail.
So thank you for reinforcing my point that it is not consistent to argue that the content of pprune may be seen by a juror but that the content of the AAIB report will not.
Exactly. The AAIB report is no more likely to be submitted in evidence than the comments here on pprune. And your point re the daily mail emphasises what I am saying. If there is a small chance that a journalist will take posts from pprune and put them into a paper, given the public interest in the Shoreham accident there is a 100% chance that the AAIB report will appear in several daily nationals, and not just the daily mail.
So thank you for reinforcing my point that it is not consistent to argue that the content of pprune may be seen by a juror but that the content of the AAIB report will not.
