Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worrying times!
The interesting thing about this case is that no matter what is in the AAIB report, they can be second guessed by Plod and his pals. The reason they don't investigate accidents in the first place is because they are not trained or equipped to do so. This is outside their area of expertise. At best they can ask a few so called experts, who have a different opinion to the AAIB, for their opinion. At worst, they can... the mind boggles. Remember, all The Filth want to do is nail you against the wall. They are certainly not interested in proving anyone's innocence.
The bottom line is if Plod win this one, the AAIB become the enemy. Why? Because anything they find can and will be used against you.
PM
The bottom line is if Plod win this one, the AAIB become the enemy. Why? Because anything they find can and will be used against you.
PM
How the authorities allow someone to get a DA on a Jet Provost and then display a Hawker Hunter is beyond belief.
How the authorities don't demand further action against display pilots whose actual display manoeuvres are deemed to be so dangerously incompetent that they are given a "Stop" order on more than one occasion is beyond belief.
And all this with minimal flying hours on the actual display aircraft and virtually zero practice.
Talk about "an accident waiting to happen".
Of course he should be charged with manslaughter but so should those who authorised him in the months and years leading up to this catastrophe.
How the authorities don't demand further action against display pilots whose actual display manoeuvres are deemed to be so dangerously incompetent that they are given a "Stop" order on more than one occasion is beyond belief.
And all this with minimal flying hours on the actual display aircraft and virtually zero practice.
Talk about "an accident waiting to happen".
Of course he should be charged with manslaughter but so should those who authorised him in the months and years leading up to this catastrophe.
Last edited by Arfur Dent; 10th Jul 2016 at 07:34.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a very interesting and soul-searching set of questions here. On the one hand, our industry strives for an open-and-honest reporting culture. In fact, we now use the word 'just' and there is a (misguided?) belief that honesty brings a degree of protection. In the same breath, we cannot be protected from the rule of law and it's consequences. The bottom line is that legal types will pour over and make a legal interpretation the 'endangerment' clause of the ANO:
Clearly, there will be endless discussion about the terms 'negligent' and/or 'reckless'. Personally, I'll be fascinated to see how this progresses, not just because of the specific occurrence.
138 Endangering safety of any person or property
A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
As I said some time ago in one of the other threads: If a number of dead and seriously injured people turn up on their patch, the Police are under a duty to investigate the circumstances and provide evidence to the CPS, who then decide if a prosecution is in order.
The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation. In fact if you were to talk to any of the officers involved you would probably find that that they would rather *not* be doing it.
The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation. In fact if you were to talk to any of the officers involved you would probably find that that they would rather *not* be doing it.
Last edited by dastocks; 8th Jul 2016 at 23:37. Reason: added some extra text
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I know the rhetoric is more exciting and inflammatory, but the CPS view of Manslaughter is reasonably clear cut;
Homicide; Murder and Manslaughter: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
Homicide; Murder and Manslaughter: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
The Breach of the Duty of Care
The ordinary law of negligence applies to these cases, in that those with an established duty of care, must act as a "reasonable person would do in their position". If they fail to do so they will have breached that duty. This is an objective test and will be based upon the defendant's position at the time of the breach.
Therefore, if the defendant has acted within the range of what was generally accepted as being the standard practice (even if it is at the lower end) it will be difficult to describe such behaviour as falling far below the standard of a reasonable person in his position.
An unqualified person is not to be judged at a lower standard than a qualified person. Therefore the lack of skill will not be a defence if the conduct is deemed negligent. If however, the defendant has particular skills and knowledge of a danger that the reasonable person would not have, his actions should be judged in the light of those skills or knowledge. This test is an objective test.
It does not matter that the defendant did not appreciate the risk (the foreseeable risk of death) only that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendant's position. (R v DPP ex parte Jones 2000 CLR 858 and AG ref No: 2 of 1999 3 All ER 182.)
The Grossness of the Breach
It is for a jury to decide whether the defendant's conduct was so bad, in all the circumstances, as to amount to a criminal act or omission. In R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328, the court agreed with the direction by the judge that the term 'reprehensible' would be apt to describe the nature of the conduct.
The ordinary law of negligence applies to these cases, in that those with an established duty of care, must act as a "reasonable person would do in their position". If they fail to do so they will have breached that duty. This is an objective test and will be based upon the defendant's position at the time of the breach.
Therefore, if the defendant has acted within the range of what was generally accepted as being the standard practice (even if it is at the lower end) it will be difficult to describe such behaviour as falling far below the standard of a reasonable person in his position.
An unqualified person is not to be judged at a lower standard than a qualified person. Therefore the lack of skill will not be a defence if the conduct is deemed negligent. If however, the defendant has particular skills and knowledge of a danger that the reasonable person would not have, his actions should be judged in the light of those skills or knowledge. This test is an objective test.
It does not matter that the defendant did not appreciate the risk (the foreseeable risk of death) only that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendant's position. (R v DPP ex parte Jones 2000 CLR 858 and AG ref No: 2 of 1999 3 All ER 182.)
The Grossness of the Breach
It is for a jury to decide whether the defendant's conduct was so bad, in all the circumstances, as to amount to a criminal act or omission. In R v Misra and Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328, the court agreed with the direction by the judge that the term 'reprehensible' would be apt to describe the nature of the conduct.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argue Dent, I find your post just a tad irritating.
Unless you have a hotline to the AAIB you have no idea what their findings may or may not be.
I doubt that AH has been given multiple stop instructions. If you are thinking of the Southport incident I believe he was departing the area when the DD issued the stop. I am unaware of any other incidents.
You can have no idea if the pilot has "forgiven himself" or not.
As previously stated in this thread, the pilot was an RAF QFI, had plenty of time in Harriers and I guess Hawks, regularly displayed an RV-8 as well as the JP.
He would - must have been - displaying under the terms of his DA.
The police are obliged to investigate, but that does not imply guilt, or even a charge .
So perhaps desist with the "of course he must be prosecuted". Hmm?
Caramba
Unless you have a hotline to the AAIB you have no idea what their findings may or may not be.
I doubt that AH has been given multiple stop instructions. If you are thinking of the Southport incident I believe he was departing the area when the DD issued the stop. I am unaware of any other incidents.
You can have no idea if the pilot has "forgiven himself" or not.
As previously stated in this thread, the pilot was an RAF QFI, had plenty of time in Harriers and I guess Hawks, regularly displayed an RV-8 as well as the JP.
He would - must have been - displaying under the terms of his DA.
The police are obliged to investigate, but that does not imply guilt, or even a charge .
So perhaps desist with the "of course he must be prosecuted". Hmm?
Caramba
The interesting thing about this case is that no matter what is in the AAIB report, they can be second guessed by Plod and his pals. The reason they don't investigate accidents in the first place is because they are not trained or equipped to do so. This is outside their area of expertise. At best they can ask a few so called experts, who have a different opinion to the AAIB, for their opinion. At worst, they can... the mind boggles. Remember, all The Filth want to do is nail you against the wall. They are certainly not interested in proving anyone's innocence.
Police objective: find out if anybody has committed a crime, if they have, who, and aim to successfully prosecute them.
AAIB objective: find out if anything from this accident could have been prevented, if so, publish recommendations to try and avoid future similar or related accidents.
Whilst they have similar investigative powers, they have totally different objectives - and so it's inevitable that they will cut across each other.
Realistically - the police must be constantly investigating crimes (or potential crimes) where they don't have in-house expertise, and calling that in from outside.
G
Dear Arfur Dent,
Just a couple of points about your post there.
AH was issued an Aircraft Type Rating Exemption (Full) by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) on 27 August 2014 enabling him to fly the Hawker Hunter, Jet Provost Mk 1-5 and Strikemaster aeroplanes, valid until 27 August 2015. He held a European Union Class 1 Medical Certificate with no limitations, issued on 20 January 2015 and valid until 31 January 2016.
He held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard3 category aerobatic manoeuvres.
I only know of one occasion. There was no statement that his display manoeuvres were deemed "dangerously incompetent".
Has he said that to you? If not, who has he said it to?
He had also met the requirement stipulated in Schedule 2 of his DA to have flown:
‘three full display sequences, one of which was on the aircraft to be displayed, not more than 90 days prior to the flight in question.’
From the pilot’s electronic logbook, it was established that the pilot had flown a total of 40.25 hours in the Hunter since 26 May 2011, of which 9.7 hours had been flown in the last 90 days and 2.1 hours in the last 28 days. He had also flown air displays in other types of aircraft, and the investigation will study his other logbooks for further information.
Police only charge people if they have evidence that a crime has been committed. I do not recall them claiming any such thing. They have purely stated that they are investigating as we already knew and as is their duty.
Just a couple of points about your post there.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
How the authorities allow someone to get a DA on a Jet Provost and then display a Hawker Hunter is beyond belief.
He held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard3 category aerobatic manoeuvres.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
How the authorities don't demand further action against display pilots whose actual display manoeuvres are deemed to be so dangerously incompetent that they are given a "Stop" order on more than one occasion is beyond belief.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Why the pilot himself is allowed to be so delusional that he personally forgives himself is beyond belief.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
And all this with minimal flying hours on the actual display aircraft and virtually zero practice.
‘three full display sequences, one of which was on the aircraft to be displayed, not more than 90 days prior to the flight in question.’
From the pilot’s electronic logbook, it was established that the pilot had flown a total of 40.25 hours in the Hunter since 26 May 2011, of which 9.7 hours had been flown in the last 90 days and 2.1 hours in the last 28 days. He had also flown air displays in other types of aircraft, and the investigation will study his other logbooks for further information.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Of course he should be charged with manslaughter but so should those who authorised him in the months and years leading up to this catastrophe.
Thrusts a must,
But plenty do. And Arfur's comments are clearly contradicted by even the first AAIB report. The post is emotive and inconsistent with the CURRENTLY released facts.
But plenty do. And Arfur's comments are clearly contradicted by even the first AAIB report. The post is emotive and inconsistent with the CURRENTLY released facts.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,867
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
As I said some time ago in one of the other threads: If a number of dead and seriously injured people turn up on their patch, the Police are under a duty to investigate the circumstances and provide evidence to the CPS, who then decide if a prosecution is in order.
The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation. In fact if you were to talk to any of the officers involved you would probably find that that they would rather *not* be doing it.
The Police don't have any choice about whether to carry out this investigation. In fact if you were to talk to any of the officers involved you would probably find that that they would rather *not* be doing it.
What extra can PC plod gain from that gathered evidence and the experts employed to determine the cause, if the police bring in a third party to view the said evidence, surely that can only come to the same conclusions or otherwise the evidence will be seen as flawed and also the findings.
Will there not be issues if some of that evidence was given to the AAIB confidentially?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a way the question being asked here is has an AAIB report ever been used as the basis for a prosecution? If the AAIB find there was a material failing and publish such, the CPS decide to prosecute, the AAIB staff can be called as expert witnesses, so no conflict of interest.
I'm not sure why, under a 'just' safety culture there is any conflict, whatsoever, between allowing for people to learn from mistakes, and punishing people who have made a mistake.
It's the difference between punishing someone who ND'd a rifle when they've not been provided with any training, and were pushed into a situation they were unfamiliar with, and punishing someone who is up to date with WHT and was using the rifle in an inappropriate manner.
It's the difference between punishing someone who ND'd a rifle when they've not been provided with any training, and were pushed into a situation they were unfamiliar with, and punishing someone who is up to date with WHT and was using the rifle in an inappropriate manner.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,867
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
There is Alfred, it has happened before where engineers were interviewed in relation to a crash ( in the US I think ) and on the basis of their testament, some of them were prosecuted, some if I remember over issues that arose but were unrelated.....
You cannot run an accident enquiry and expect people to give evidence to assist in determining the root cause of an accident, if that information will be used to prosecute those giving it...
It will never happen again, indeed there is a culture forming now where people will simply refuse to give evidence and the possibility from that will arise that the true cause of an accident may not be found and others may die needlessly as a result.
You cannot run an accident enquiry and expect people to give evidence to assist in determining the root cause of an accident, if that information will be used to prosecute those giving it...
It will never happen again, indeed there is a culture forming now where people will simply refuse to give evidence and the possibility from that will arise that the true cause of an accident may not be found and others may die needlessly as a result.
"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".
G
G
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The 'Building Blocks' of an investigation are the same regardless of the severity or otherwise of an incident.
You
A previous poster has stated the police do not have experience of investigating aviation accidents which is actually not altogether correct. There will always be some police involvement.
Where an investigation involves an area which is not the norm, experts in whichever field is relevant will be utilised.
It should also be noted that police investigations will focus on ALL aspects of an incident / occurrence.
Forget the bad press, the vast majority of 'PC Plod' do the right thing. 'DC Plod', who will be investigating this incident, is unlikely to leave any stone unturned.
The facts will be presented as they are. I for one do not wish for a Witch-hunt.
TN.
You
A previous poster has stated the police do not have experience of investigating aviation accidents which is actually not altogether correct. There will always be some police involvement.
Where an investigation involves an area which is not the norm, experts in whichever field is relevant will be utilised.
It should also be noted that police investigations will focus on ALL aspects of an incident / occurrence.
Forget the bad press, the vast majority of 'PC Plod' do the right thing. 'DC Plod', who will be investigating this incident, is unlikely to leave any stone unturned.
The facts will be presented as they are. I for one do not wish for a Witch-hunt.
TN.
Last edited by tarantonight; 9th Jul 2016 at 22:02.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".
G
G
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
"Just" culture as defined in the UK and Europe most certainly allows for punishment of professionals who have made mistakes. That's why a great many of us don't like it and would prefer to see a return to the previous less satisfying, but much more wholesome "assumption of good intent".
I'm not sure what the AAIB/CAA/Civ Pol use, but the MAA use the DA FAiR model for determining culpability.
Page 38 of 46 (Ch 3 Annex C). - the easier-to-follow flowchart is on page 44 - 45 (App 2 to Annex C of Ch 3).