Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you 212man for posting the link to this AAIB Supplement. As I read this, the AAIB have examined and disagreed with many points of evidence. Additionally, am I right that they discount "CI" as an aviation medical condition? Where does that leave the legal situation from the trial and its judgement?
OAP
OAP
The difference between inspectors' views and reports, and the redacted political versions, is systemic and has been for many years.
As a UK TACEVAL Met. evaluator in 2 ATAF and 4ATAF I was told very firmly by the team leader "you cannot write that!" Thus cannabis on the window sill of a Met Office was allowed to grow to crop, and incompetence and indifference to continue unremarked.
In another life, my damning annual inspection report of a civil airport Met. facilities was greeted with horror.
The honest strivings of experts at about PSO/Gp Capt level are routinely subverted. Those who protest do not climb the greasy pole.
Fact of life, and not only UK.
As a UK TACEVAL Met. evaluator in 2 ATAF and 4ATAF I was told very firmly by the team leader "you cannot write that!" Thus cannabis on the window sill of a Met Office was allowed to grow to crop, and incompetence and indifference to continue unremarked.
In another life, my damning annual inspection report of a civil airport Met. facilities was greeted with horror.
The honest strivings of experts at about PSO/Gp Capt level are routinely subverted. Those who protest do not climb the greasy pole.
Fact of life, and not only UK.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 84
Posts: 156
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is difficult to read the AAIB supplementary report without gaining the impression that they were somewhat peeved to have been required to write it. It does not evidence their customary open mindedness, instead reeking of a desire to bury CI by whatever means they can. It seems to start from the premise that it doesn't exist, and seeks out all the material they can find to support that premise.
For my own part, I have no idea whether there is such a thing as CI or not, but having had the subject raised by this tragic series of events, I remain unclear whether it does or not. The AAIB supplementary report reads rather like a publication of the flat earth society; "The earth is flat, and here is all the evidence we have found to support this view........" and has not dispelled my curiosity.
As it transpired in court, it didn't matter what the AAIB thought, but just what the Jury did. That they could conceive of the possibility that there could be a state of mental impairment with onset ahead of the currently fully accepted stages of mental impairment does not seem at all unreasonable, and rather more to their credit than the AAIBs latest contribution is to theirs.
For my own part, I have no idea whether there is such a thing as CI or not, but having had the subject raised by this tragic series of events, I remain unclear whether it does or not. The AAIB supplementary report reads rather like a publication of the flat earth society; "The earth is flat, and here is all the evidence we have found to support this view........" and has not dispelled my curiosity.
As it transpired in court, it didn't matter what the AAIB thought, but just what the Jury did. That they could conceive of the possibility that there could be a state of mental impairment with onset ahead of the currently fully accepted stages of mental impairment does not seem at all unreasonable, and rather more to their credit than the AAIBs latest contribution is to theirs.
The AAIB supplementary report reads rather like a publication of the flat earth society; "The earth is flat, and here is all the evidence we have found to support this view........" and has not dispelled my curiosity.
There is a distinct difference between an accident investigation by an appointed organisation (AAIB) and a manslaughter trial in a court of law. The conclusions drawn from the analysis undertaken by the former with respect to low Gz CI will be based upon the balance of probabilities of whether or not CI occurred and it appears that they found no evidence that it did, only that some sources consider that it exists (whilst others do not). However, for a guilty verdict to have been given by the jury in the criminal court the prosecution would have to have proven beyond reasonable doubt that CI did not occur. Therefore, the two criteria are different.
As LOMCEVAK says, this is a common problem in criminal trials. The defence raise the hypothesis that a situation occurred - self defence/misunderstanding/whatever - and the prosecution are then required to disprove it. There is no requirement for the defence to prove anything .. just to raise the matter as a "possibility". Trying to disprove a negative hypothesis is extremely difficult as the only possible way is a positive proof, and in most accident situations that is highly unllikely.
It does seem to raise doubt over whether the display pilot of a high-performance aircraft could ever be found culpably negligent. Anyone who’s taken a passenger flying in a fast jet knows how utterly overwhelming the experience can be for the senses and the cognitive ability of the untrained human brain; it’s a truism that we were built for 1g straight and level. Training and experience can overcome that to a greater or lesser extent, but the record shows that even trained and experienced pilots have sometimes found themselves unaware of impending disaster. If all it takes to escape the charge of negligence is to cite the possibility that decision-making was impaired by temporary reduction of blood flow to the brain (something that happens as a matter of course during high-performance manoeuvring) then the only controls available on such activity are of the sort we’ve seen since Shoreham: much tighter constraints on flying to minimise the impact of ‘inevitable’ accidents.
Last edited by Easy Street; 21st Dec 2019 at 22:04.
The AAIB are excellent at engineering and technical analysis but incredibly poor at understanding the fleshy bit holding the stick. Good grief, the supplement reads as if written by a GCSE student who skimmed through a human factors book while waiting for the bus. Another pointless waste of taxpayers money.
The AAIB are excellent at engineering and technical analysis but incredibly poor at understanding the fleshy bit holding the stick. Good grief, the supplement reads as if written by a GCSE student who skimmed through a human factors book while waiting for the bus. Another pointless waste of taxpayers money.
I’d say the supplement reads more like something MoD would write. It won't have liked being sucked in to this, and will be aghast at what has been claimed in the RAF's name by the CAA. Has the AAIB chosen sides?
The supplement could be a smokescreen. Will the Coroner blow it away and ask the obvious question about certification and oversight?
The supplement could be a smokescreen. Will the Coroner blow it away and ask the obvious question about certification and oversight?
I'm sure the Coroner won't reopen the Inquest - can't see a reason in law to do so - it's a matter of opinion at the end of the day - the CAA v. the pilot's medical team
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 59
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the Inquest will be well worth waiting for, Asturias. It all rather depends upon the Coroner, and this one seems interested in the wider events that led up to this tragedy. Just a little more patience...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1819...-without-jury/
Shoreham Airshow inquest to be held without a jury
The coroner who will probe the deaths of 11 men in the Shoreham Airshow crash has vowed to carry out a “fearless and impartial” investigation.
The highly anticipated inquests into the 2015 tragedy in which a Hawker Hunter jet exploded into a fireball on a busy dual carriageway are to take place in September 2020, it has been decided.
Speaking on Wednesday, senior coroner Penelope Schofield thanked families for their patience and acknowledged it would be five years since the tragedy before the inquests actually got under way.
A pre-inquest review at Centenary House in Crawley on Wednesday was told that the inquests would take place in a six-week window from September 14. Mrs Schofield also said it was her decision that the inquests would not have a jury.......
Shoreham Airshow inquest to be held without a jury
The coroner who will probe the deaths of 11 men in the Shoreham Airshow crash has vowed to carry out a “fearless and impartial” investigation.
The highly anticipated inquests into the 2015 tragedy in which a Hawker Hunter jet exploded into a fireball on a busy dual carriageway are to take place in September 2020, it has been decided.
Speaking on Wednesday, senior coroner Penelope Schofield thanked families for their patience and acknowledged it would be five years since the tragedy before the inquests actually got under way.
A pre-inquest review at Centenary House in Crawley on Wednesday was told that the inquests would take place in a six-week window from September 14. Mrs Schofield also said it was her decision that the inquests would not have a jury.......
