Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

Old 22nd Mar 2019, 15:39
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 379
You can find the answer on AAIB report admissibility here. The case was Rogers v Hoyle - to cut a long story short, the AAIB reports are considered to be expert and may be used. (And was on this occasion too.)

The coroner has been making noises about the inquest, and many people are expecting a whole new 'investigation'. They may be disappointed. To quote the Lord Chief Justice when he ruled in 2016 on the Norfolk Coroner's demand for access to the CVR/FDR for an AW139 accident:
“In the absence of credible evidence that the investigation into an accident is incomplete, flawed or deficient, a Coroner conducting an inquest into a death which occurred in an aircraft accident, should not consider it necessary to investigate again the matters covered or to be covered by the independent investigation of the AAIB. […] [T]he findings and conclusions should not be reopened.”
I think it will be hard for anyone to suggest that the AAIB report in this case is incomplete, flawed or deficient.
Fortissimo is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 16:03
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 497
AAIB reports are admissible in Civil (ie liability) proceedings - as per Rogers v Hoyle

They are not admissible in criminal proceedings nor is the material obtained in the course of the AAIB investigation. It is annex 13 'protected' material. See also EU Regulation 996 0f 2010 Article 14 1(d) and Regulation 25 of The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018
The AAIB report was not used in evidence during the Shoreham trial
Legalapproach is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 16:46
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Legalapproach View Post
AAIB reports are admissible in Civil (ie liability) proceedings - as per Rogers v Hoyle

They are not admissible in criminal proceedings nor is the material obtained in the course of the AAIB investigation. It is annex 13 'protected' material. See also EU Regulation 996 0f 2010 Article 14 1(d) and Regulation 25 of The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018
The AAIB report was not used in evidence during the Shoreham trial
Thank you Legalapproach et al. As a prosecution barrister (say) how would you be able to 'get around this' if theres any way at all? After all, in this case, trying to prove negligence to get a conviction would be highly dependent on an analysis of the aerobatic manoeuvre, and how it was flown, incapacitated or not. Thats a seperate issue.
Treble one is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 19:41
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 497
Treble one, as one of AH's defence barristers (and the defence barrister in the Hoyle criminal case) I'm not sure I ought to give away how the prosecution should do it!!

Legalapproach is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 19:45
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 2
Has any fault been attributed to the show organisers?
GirlsWithWings is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 20:48
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 530
Ah, Hoyle! Another tragic example of what happens when a loop is poorly flown!
H Peacock is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2019, 20:52
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by Legalapproach View Post
Treble one, as one of AH's defence barristers (and the defence barrister in the Hoyle criminal case) I'm not sure I ought to give away how the prosecution should do it!!
I think that is fair enough m'learned friend. :-)
Treble one is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 09:02
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,493
Originally Posted by Legalapproach View Post
Treble one, as one of AH's defence barristers (and the defence barrister in the Hoyle criminal case) I'm not sure I ought to give away how the prosecution should do it!!
Acknowledging that you have no duty to prove anything, I’d still have thought that you’d welcome the opportunity to defend your client successfully against a complete and well-put case!

Is there a procedural barrier to a prosecution using an AAIB report as a handrail and asking the appropriate questions of the appropriate witnesses to bring out the same evidence in admissible fashion?

Last edited by Easy Street; 23rd Mar 2019 at 09:14.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 11:13
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 497
It was a tongue in cheek answer. The way the prosecution deal with it is to commission their own experts to review the available/admissible evidence and give an opinion. The prosecution were able to use film of the incident, NATS radar data and in some instances non AAIB witnesses who had provided opinion to the AAIB ( i.e. medical witnesses, the test pilot (who had been commissioned jointly by the police and AAIB) etc. Because all of this was available independent of the AAIB and not protected material. The witnesses essentially gave fresh statements.

Ah, Hoyle! Another tragic example of what happens when a loop is poorly flown!
In fact no, that was the allegation made by the prosecution but denied by the defence. The defence produced evidence that the aircraft was not flying a loop. In reaching their not guilty verdicts the jury were not satisfied that a loop was being flown.
Legalapproach is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 11:20
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: glasgow
Posts: 202
Has any fault been attributed to the show organisers?
A good question Girls with wings, and one which I suspect will occupy the Coroner and may feature in any civil proceedings.
That a display might go wrong, for whatever reason, is all too obvious, and history is strewn with examples which have led to crashes (including at Shoreham not so many years previously).
Factor in Fast Jets and high energy, and not much imagination is required to foresee the potential for an outcome such as that which so tragically unfolded at Shoreham. The risk assessment for the event must surely have conducted some evaluation of the likelihood of an accident and the potential consequences thereof. IMHO, to reduce the residual risk to an acceptable level given the likely catastrophic consequences of the risk occurring, a ridiculously optimistic probability would have to have been attached to the likelihood of the risk occurring.
Put differently, even a perfect pilot flying a perfect aircraft in a perfect manner represented an unacceptable level of risk flying that display at Shoreham given the potential for disaster if something did go wrong.
falcon900 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 11:45
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 530
Put differently, even a perfect pilot flying a perfect aircraft in a perfect manner represented an unacceptable level of risk flying that display at Shoreham given the potential for disaster if something did go wrong.
Same could be said for a busy airport in a large built-up area. Thankfully after G-ARPI at Staines there wasn't this huge over-reaction that things have to change. Yes there is a risk, but Im afraid that's life. If say one in every 20 years an airliner will go down in a built up area then just accept it and get on with life!. Things really were all for the better before this ridiculous US style 'blame' culture!
H Peacock is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 13:13
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,493
Originally Posted by H Peacock View Post
Same could be said for a busy airport in a large built-up area. Thankfully after G-ARPI at Staines there wasn't this huge over-reaction that things have to change. Yes there is a risk, but Im afraid that's life. If say one in every 20 years an airliner will go down in a built up area then just accept it and get on with life!. Things really were all for the better before this ridiculous US style 'blame' culture!
All of which would be a fine and dandy argument if display accidents ran at one every 20 years. Sadly not the case.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 13:25
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 691
It is possible for parts of an AAIB report to be used as evidence in a criminal trial if the content is deemed admissible and the required parts are presented formally as a witness statement. In AH's trial, one example was that 'Annex H - Report on Data Gathering Flying Related to the Accident to G-BXFI' from the AAIB report was presented by the author and thereafter was available to the court. At this point, the author, who had been working for AAIB as an advisor, became an expert witness for the trial.
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 14:57
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: glasgow
Posts: 202
H Peacock,
I am not suggesting that we can live in a world which is risk free, but simply that there are sometimes consequences which are so unpalatable that the risk of them occurring has to be demonstrably extremely small to allow the activity to rationally take place. I would respectfully submit that civil aviation operations around busy airports are demonstrably very low risk, whereas display flying particularly of vintage fast jets is not.
Don't get me wrong, I love to see vintage aircraft put through their paces, but the venue has to be appropriate to the intended display. I don't think Shoreham was, and I don't think that is down to the pilot.
falcon900 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2019, 19:25
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by Easy Street View Post


All of which would be a fine and dandy argument if display accidents ran at one every 20 years. Sadly not the case.
As far as the UK goes fatalities and accidents at air shows generally have been through a spate in the last 20 or so years. Biggin Hill saw two in as many days in 2001, a Hurricane was lost with the Pilot at Shoreham a few years ago, there have been others, all so far have involved vintage ex military types. Back in the late forties and early fifties, every annual Battle of Britain 'At Home' day would see at least two fatalities! But then we're looking at around 70 odd similar events on the same day! Something else to make the modern mind boggle.

FB

Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 02:01
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,781
Put differently, even a perfect pilot flying a perfect aircraft in a perfect manner represented an unacceptable level of risk flying that display at Shoreham given the potential for disaster if something did go wrong
Even the best practised are not immune from errors, though in this case he had a safe place in which to crash. The Hunter test pilot, Bill Bedford, demonstrating the aircraft to the Swiss made the error of forgetting he was displaying at a high altitude airport and on the down line of a loop realised he may not make it, but did.

megan is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 06:27
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 526
I am not surprised at the verdict, but was surprised at the defense that won the day. Fast jet flying has always been an unforgiving environment and people make mistakes that if fatal usually just cost crew lives. In my career through the 80/90s I knew of 10 colleagues that died under the age of 30. BV expressed my view many pages ago when he said that as a current FJ pilot you wouldn’t get him near a display jet without currency and a proper work up. Yet that is what happened.

In the modern world we have become sanitized to the true threats of high energy maneuvering. In F1, cars have catastrophic crashes and our hero’s usually walk away unscathed. If you really want to understand the risks of aviation with 50s jets you need to take a history lesson. My dad started flying in 52 and was the only one of his course of 19 still alive by the end of the 60s. Most died in air crashes.

In the time of the Hunter the UK military lost on average 1 aircraft each and every day! Youngsters will scoff at that stat but in 56 we had lost 40 before the end of January. If you want a proper understanding of the risks of 50s aviation, look no further:

UK Military Aircraft Losses

I am all for displaying war birds, what is missed by some that display them is the watching public don’t really care about the quality or difficulty of the display; it’s not a competion! They want a nice safe environment, lots of noise (low and fast works best) and a bit of upside down. A wacky ‘wifadil’ entry into the display line might satisfy the pilot but the average person in the street doesn’t give a rats ass.

Last edited by Schnowzer; 24th Mar 2019 at 10:11. Reason: Addition of paragraph
Schnowzer is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 14:00
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 756
Originally Posted by Legalapproach View Post
It was a tongue in cheek answer. The way the prosecution deal with it is to commission their own experts to review the available/admissible evidence and give an opinion. The prosecution were able to use film of the incident, NATS radar data and in some instances non AAIB witnesses who had provided opinion to the AAIB ( i.e. medical witnesses, the test pilot (who had been commissioned jointly by the police and AAIB) etc. Because all of this was available independent of the AAIB and not protected material. The witnesses essentially gave fresh statements.



In fact no, that was the allegation made by the prosecution but denied by the defence. The defence produced evidence that the aircraft was not flying a loop. In reaching their not guilty verdicts the jury were not satisfied that a loop was being flown.
If it wasn't a loop, what was it...?!

Nige321 is online now  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 14:19
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 691
Originally Posted by megan View Post
Even the best practised are not immune from errors, though in this case he had a safe place in which to crash. The Hunter test pilot, Bill Bedford, demonstrating the aircraft to the Swiss made the error of forgetting he was displaying at a high altitude airport and on the down line of a loop realised he may not make it, but did.
As much of this post involves discussion of loops, to keep the record straight I believe that Bill's event that you describe was actually during the recovery from an intentional spin, not a loop.

My dad started flying in 52 and was the only one of his course of 19 still alive by the end of the 60s. Most died in air crashes.

In the time of the Hunter the UK military lost on average 1 aircraft each and every day! Youngsters will scoff at that stat but in 56 we had lost 40 before the end of January.
I feel that there is little correlation between these statistics and the Shoreham accident. You have to look at why the accident rate was as it was in the '50s and '60s. There is nothing to indicate that at Shoreham there was any causal factor related to the aircraft type or its era. There are certainly factors related to it being a swept wing jet but those apply equally to types that are in production today. The Hunter has generally very good, benign flying qualities. Its main (only?) deficiency is that it is easy to exceed the g limit during manoeuvres involving rapid g onset rates but that will not cause air display accidents. The main consideration with aeroplanes of this era is that for flying in IMC the instruments, unless updated, require 'old skills' and are unreliable. However, as the aircraft that are displayed are cleared for VMC only that is not a safety factor in this context.

One more point of accuracy with respect to 'In the time of the Hunter ..', the Hunter remained in RAF service until 1994 and MAA registered ones are still flying today!
LOMCEVAK is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2019, 15:54
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mars
Posts: 526
One more point of accuracy with respect to 'In the time of the Hunter ..', the Hunter remained in RAF service until 1994 and MAA registered ones are still flying today!
Thanks for the education Mr Lomcevak, I am sorry, I didn’t realize posts were being graded on this thread. I assumed comment was still allowed. I’ll run the next post past my lawyer.

Oddly enough even with my lack of SA, when I was flying in close with a Hunter in the 90s, I actually spotted it was still flying. But then as 6 crashed on the same day in 1956, I reckon that carries more weight. Using your logic, we still live in the time of Bleriot seeing as the Shuttleworth collection get one out every now and then.
Schnowzer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.