Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be that the re-occurrence of an event of a similar nature to that being discussed, would be lessened if Historic Aircraft, already a finite source, would of necessity be confined to a more sedate display.
I'm second to none in my liking for, and appreciation of, displays of energetic aerobatics flown with panache but, pulling high G loads does not bode well for the extended lifespan of Historic Aircraft airframes.
The public, by and large, attend air displays with a camera and are thrilled and excited by the appearance of their favourite aircraft. Photo opportunities of Historic Aircraft making sedate passes, wing overs, gentle turns are surely all that is required. Pilots and airframes alike could benefit from more restrained displays, thus providing some additional element of safety to the routine.
Seeing the aircraft in restrained flight is almost as good as seeing it demonstrated exuberantly.
I'm second to none in my liking for, and appreciation of, displays of energetic aerobatics flown with panache but, pulling high G loads does not bode well for the extended lifespan of Historic Aircraft airframes.
The public, by and large, attend air displays with a camera and are thrilled and excited by the appearance of their favourite aircraft. Photo opportunities of Historic Aircraft making sedate passes, wing overs, gentle turns are surely all that is required. Pilots and airframes alike could benefit from more restrained displays, thus providing some additional element of safety to the routine.
Seeing the aircraft in restrained flight is almost as good as seeing it demonstrated exuberantly.
Keep the perspective. Privately owned and maintained aircraft can be used within their capabilities according to the regulations. The wear and tear is up to the owners. "Sedate" displays are not a panacea for accidents. However, that is not to say that "the regulations" were satisfactory and, no amount of over-regulation will ever stop all accidents.
One big point that may colour the future of displays is, the apparent establishment that a CI may occur at anytime and absolve blameworthiness.
OAP
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the CAA did get some stick (not blame) from the AAIB for the current state of the rules etc, is it really necessary to write a rule saying "Thou shalt not start an aerobatic manoeuvre too low and too slow and outside the display area." I know we only needed a few 'O' levels to fly in the RAF but we really don't need a rule to spell out the obvious.
Much talk of escape manoeuvres and 'g' and impairment from the fighter jocks but as a trucky, I reckon if you start in the right place and do the business, you will probably end up in the right place
Much talk of escape manoeuvres and 'g' and impairment from the fighter jocks but as a trucky, I reckon if you start in the right place and do the business, you will probably end up in the right place
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I reckon if you start in the right place and do the business, you will probably end up in the right place
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relying on the Beeb or newspaper articles for accuarate reports of the court proceedings gives a totally flawed impression of what happened, mainly because the defence does not give regular updates to the press, while the prosecution does.
Wng Cdr Green got trashed over his G-calculations and knowledge of CI. JW got trashed for a lot of what he said and the evidence for previous cavalier or reckless flying turned into nothing. After that the prosecution didn’t have a lot going for it.
As a (non-aviation related) expert witness in the past, I would say they failed to do their research adequately and did not establish key facts before giving evidence and being cross examined. They left the goal open and Mr Khalil just had to tap the ball in.
the public interest argument might have been sting but the chance of a guilty verdict were slender.
caramba
Wng Cdr Green got trashed over his G-calculations and knowledge of CI. JW got trashed for a lot of what he said and the evidence for previous cavalier or reckless flying turned into nothing. After that the prosecution didn’t have a lot going for it.
As a (non-aviation related) expert witness in the past, I would say they failed to do their research adequately and did not establish key facts before giving evidence and being cross examined. They left the goal open and Mr Khalil just had to tap the ball in.
the public interest argument might have been sting but the chance of a guilty verdict were slender.
caramba
Does anyone know what the restrictions around the use of the AAIB report/findings were in court please? I'm curious because if (as the prosecution were alleging) that AH was negligent, and this negligence caused the crash, then 'exhibit 1' should have been the nuts and bolts of how he flew the manoeuvre?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a legal beagle can clarify this pilot view.
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:
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
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 10:14.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Ah, Hoyle! Another tragic example of what happens when a loop is poorly flown!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
