Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
I can't give a definitive answer because there are too many variables but the short answer is that there could have been a miscarriage of justice.
I note that you refer to the "second occupant" rather than passenger, and that the AAIB "failed to determine who had actually been flying the aircraft at the time - because they never asked!"
Assuming, just for the purpose of illustration, that the second occupant was flying when control was lost, the question that arises is whether he would have been prepared to tell the AAIB that he was - had he been asked.
That prompts consideration of some of the objections the AAIB raised to the use of its reports for a purpose for which they are not intended:
In the accident you mentioned the pilot was killed, but the same considerations apply to pilots who survive.
_________
The implications of the decision for the conduct of litigation is just one factor.
The other is more immediately relevant to aviators: aviation safety.
Given the objectives of an AAIB investigation, anything that undermines its ability to obtain truthful information is obviously detrimental to aviation safety.
If people who could assist an investigation are not full and frank in the information they disclose, even for understandable reasons, then the AAIB is not in a position to make appropriate safety recommendations with the objective of preventing future accidents.
FL, I'd be interested to read your opinion regarding the situation I mentioned above.
I note that you refer to the "second occupant" rather than passenger, and that the AAIB "failed to determine who had actually been flying the aircraft at the time - because they never asked!"
Assuming, just for the purpose of illustration, that the second occupant was flying when control was lost, the question that arises is whether he would have been prepared to tell the AAIB that he was - had he been asked.
That prompts consideration of some of the objections the AAIB raised to the use of its reports for a purpose for which they are not intended:
- If AAIB reports are frequently admitted into evidence in litigation there is the possibility that this would deter some people who are able to assist from doing so.
- Witnesses may perceive a risk of their being called to give evidence or even made defendants in subsequent legal proceedings. Witness cooperation may be less forthcoming and they are likely to be more guarded in what they say.
- Investigators may now have to mention to those concerned that any report is admissible in civil proceedings. (IMHO, there is a strong argument that they should now give such a warning.)
In the accident you mentioned the pilot was killed, but the same considerations apply to pilots who survive.
_________
The implications of the decision for the conduct of litigation is just one factor.
The other is more immediately relevant to aviators: aviation safety.
Given the objectives of an AAIB investigation, anything that undermines its ability to obtain truthful information is obviously detrimental to aviation safety.
If people who could assist an investigation are not full and frank in the information they disclose, even for understandable reasons, then the AAIB is not in a position to make appropriate safety recommendations with the objective of preventing future accidents.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas coupling
The CAA (like other interested parties) is entitled to submit comments for consideration by the AAIB at the draft stage before the final report is published but it has no power to "correct" a report.
Rightly so, IMHO. There are occasions when the AAIB makes adverse comments about a role played by the CAA. The CAA should not have power to remove them.
There is nothing to prevent the CAA from stating publicly that it does not accept AAIB findings/recommendations. It sometimes does.
I was reassured to read that the Chief Inspector emphasised the independence of the AAIB and, in particular, express concern that it should not be drawn into litigation. I have had professional experience of a very different attitude.
In a criminal case in which I was involved as defence counsel which arose from a fatal accident, far from maintaining independence, the most active (not most senior) inspector became far too close to the police during their investigation.
That was very obvious at the preliminary court hearings. He was not only huddled in private conversation with the police/prosecution team before and after the hearings - I suppose they could have been discussing the weather - but even sat with them during the hearings.
The AAIB did not support my objection to the report being used in evidence.
In the same case, it was suggested to me by a now retired senior person in the AAIB that it should become involved in the trial as independent expert witnesses. I rejected the suggestion, partly because I did not regard the particular inspector (the one mentioned above) as independent and partly because our own experts had found significant flaws in the AAIB's findings and reasoning.
The disputes were not resolved because, for other reasons, the case did not ultimately proceed to trial.
The AAIB has an excellent reputation which in my view is justified. However, contrary to assumption by some people (including some in these forums), the AAIB makes mistakes from time to time – just like the rest of us.
Being independent does not mean always being right.
.
Why is it that when someone points out errors, the CAA don't correct the report?
Rightly so, IMHO. There are occasions when the AAIB makes adverse comments about a role played by the CAA. The CAA should not have power to remove them.
There is nothing to prevent the CAA from stating publicly that it does not accept AAIB findings/recommendations. It sometimes does.
I was reassured to read that the Chief Inspector emphasised the independence of the AAIB and, in particular, express concern that it should not be drawn into litigation. I have had professional experience of a very different attitude.
In a criminal case in which I was involved as defence counsel which arose from a fatal accident, far from maintaining independence, the most active (not most senior) inspector became far too close to the police during their investigation.
That was very obvious at the preliminary court hearings. He was not only huddled in private conversation with the police/prosecution team before and after the hearings - I suppose they could have been discussing the weather - but even sat with them during the hearings.
The AAIB did not support my objection to the report being used in evidence.
In the same case, it was suggested to me by a now retired senior person in the AAIB that it should become involved in the trial as independent expert witnesses. I rejected the suggestion, partly because I did not regard the particular inspector (the one mentioned above) as independent and partly because our own experts had found significant flaws in the AAIB's findings and reasoning.
The disputes were not resolved because, for other reasons, the case did not ultimately proceed to trial.
The AAIB has an excellent reputation which in my view is justified. However, contrary to assumption by some people (including some in these forums), the AAIB makes mistakes from time to time – just like the rest of us.
Being independent does not mean always being right.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 6th Apr 2016 at 08:19.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
FL, thanks for your reply. Much as I thought, I will in future be extremely cautious about speaking to the AAIB. I hope I never have cause to do so!
Flying Lawyer, thank you for your erudite responses.
As a former professional sailor and current professional pilot, I have had at the back of my mind in this discussion the manslaughter trial of Michael Hubble, Officer of the Watch on the Pride of Bilbao regarding the crew of the yacht Ouzo.
In that case, the MAIB were of the "firm opinion" that the Pride of Bilbao had been involved in a close encounter with the Ouzo, and it was following the publication of their report that the prosecution was undertaken my the MCA (the maritime version of the CAA) enforcement branch.
That case (in my view rightly but for different reasons) resulted in an acquittal, as I suspect would any criminal case based on this accident.
Like ShyTorque, in any accident where criminal liability might come into play, I would seek legal advice before any interview with the AAIB.
Also relevant, but in a different jurisdiction (and in this case contested by BALPA) is the Scottish police investigation into the crash of G-WNSB on approach to Sumburgh.
Fundamentally, unless there is clear evidence of negligence I do not view the criminal courts as an appropriate avenue for restitution following fatal accidents.
As a former professional sailor and current professional pilot, I have had at the back of my mind in this discussion the manslaughter trial of Michael Hubble, Officer of the Watch on the Pride of Bilbao regarding the crew of the yacht Ouzo.
In that case, the MAIB were of the "firm opinion" that the Pride of Bilbao had been involved in a close encounter with the Ouzo, and it was following the publication of their report that the prosecution was undertaken my the MCA (the maritime version of the CAA) enforcement branch.
That case (in my view rightly but for different reasons) resulted in an acquittal, as I suspect would any criminal case based on this accident.
Like ShyTorque, in any accident where criminal liability might come into play, I would seek legal advice before any interview with the AAIB.
Also relevant, but in a different jurisdiction (and in this case contested by BALPA) is the Scottish police investigation into the crash of G-WNSB on approach to Sumburgh.
Fundamentally, unless there is clear evidence of negligence I do not view the criminal courts as an appropriate avenue for restitution following fatal accidents.
As somebody who spends a lot of his life writing technical reports - a significant number of them over the years about bent flying machines of all shapes and sizes, some aspects of how AAIB currently work trouble me. Others don't.
With regard to that particular point, I think that if you interrogated the Chief Inspector about this the answer you'd get is along the lines of the real reason for AAIB reports is to make recommendations that are intended to prevent future accidents. If they had evidence which made a recommendation AAIB had made invalid, or which gave reason to issue a new recommendation - I think that they would do so.
However, from AAIB's viewpoint the primary purpose of the investigation is as a tool to enable generation of useful recommendations. If changed facts do not change those recommendations, then I think that in AAIB's collective mind, that doesn't create a reason to amend the report.
I don't necessarily support that viewpoint, but I think that's what they're thinking. Another point of-course is that just because somebody thinks that AAIB's facts are wrong, doesn't mean that AAIB thinks so.
AAIB reports in many ways are extremely useful and thorough reports, and very useful material for all sorts of developing design studies and safety investigations. But I'll add another criticism which, to my mind puts AAIB in the dark ages - they fail to properly cite most of their data sources. When I write a report - whether for a court or some other purpose such as academic research, I am normally required and expected to clearly identify all of my main sources of information. (The regulations for expert witnesses require that, as do all guides to best practice in technical writing.) That AAIB do not, probably improves their readability, but at the same time significantly degrades their utility for technical grown-ups wanting to make use of them (or I suspect people like FL and his colleagues, if they have reason to challenge them.)
G
With regard to that particular point, I think that if you interrogated the Chief Inspector about this the answer you'd get is along the lines of the real reason for AAIB reports is to make recommendations that are intended to prevent future accidents. If they had evidence which made a recommendation AAIB had made invalid, or which gave reason to issue a new recommendation - I think that they would do so.
However, from AAIB's viewpoint the primary purpose of the investigation is as a tool to enable generation of useful recommendations. If changed facts do not change those recommendations, then I think that in AAIB's collective mind, that doesn't create a reason to amend the report.
I don't necessarily support that viewpoint, but I think that's what they're thinking. Another point of-course is that just because somebody thinks that AAIB's facts are wrong, doesn't mean that AAIB thinks so.
AAIB reports in many ways are extremely useful and thorough reports, and very useful material for all sorts of developing design studies and safety investigations. But I'll add another criticism which, to my mind puts AAIB in the dark ages - they fail to properly cite most of their data sources. When I write a report - whether for a court or some other purpose such as academic research, I am normally required and expected to clearly identify all of my main sources of information. (The regulations for expert witnesses require that, as do all guides to best practice in technical writing.) That AAIB do not, probably improves their readability, but at the same time significantly degrades their utility for technical grown-ups wanting to make use of them (or I suspect people like FL and his colleagues, if they have reason to challenge them.)
G
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,722
Received 2,721 Likes
on
1,156 Posts
Let's hope so as the Airshow season is nearly upon us and all those FJ display pilots need to get their practice in before strutting their stuff.
BBMF should be extended to include historic fast jets so that pilot currency can be properly regulated and supervised.
BBMF should be extended to include historic fast jets so that pilot currency can be properly regulated and supervised.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Arfur, interesting proposition. Bring in a contractor to run BBMF; require civilian historics to pay the contractor for oversight thus funding BBMF.
That'll work well.
That'll work well.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA report is available now: UK civil air display review: final report
It was embargoed until midnight.
Treble one
You may be right, but I'd be surprised.
It was embargoed until midnight.
Treble one
Final AAIB report on this incident possibly due this week coming.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 14th Apr 2016 at 00:56. Reason: Link fixed
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB final report
The AAIB stated at the pre Inquest review hearing last month that the draft report should be done by the early summer, then following the consultation process, published in final format, hopefully, by September 2016.
Meanwhile the Sussex Police are in the High Court asking for "key evidence" held by the AAIB to be released. Again, a decision on that is expected in the Summer.
Next pre Inquest review hearing is September 19th, to take stock of events etc.
Meanwhile the Sussex Police are in the High Court asking for "key evidence" held by the AAIB to be released. Again, a decision on that is expected in the Summer.
Next pre Inquest review hearing is September 19th, to take stock of events etc.
I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick FL, apologies.
I was at a meeting at Duxford at the weekend and Shoreham and its effect on airshows was one of the topics discussed by the CAA representative-He did mention that 'the report would be out this week'-clearly he was referring to this document not the AAIB report.
I was at a meeting at Duxford at the weekend and Shoreham and its effect on airshows was one of the topics discussed by the CAA representative-He did mention that 'the report would be out this week'-clearly he was referring to this document not the AAIB report.
I find it interesting that the CAA feel content to issue a "final" report before presumably they've seen AAIB's final report. The implication of that, to me, is that CAA value their own analysis and recommendations above the eventual ones from AAIB.
G
G
Gengis,
Between now and the date the AAIB report is going to come out there is the summer display season, so I don't think it is unreasonable for the CAA to put the measures in now. You will probably find some display pilots and organisers will still have to scrabble about to meet the new restrictions and approvals in time, anyway!
I am sure this 'final' report may end up being adjusted in the detail following feedback from this year's displays, and the eventual AAIB report findings.
Flug
Between now and the date the AAIB report is going to come out there is the summer display season, so I don't think it is unreasonable for the CAA to put the measures in now. You will probably find some display pilots and organisers will still have to scrabble about to meet the new restrictions and approvals in time, anyway!
I am sure this 'final' report may end up being adjusted in the detail following feedback from this year's displays, and the eventual AAIB report findings.
Flug
