Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Originally Posted by tucumseh
To be fair, when asked the question about this MoD confirmed neither it nor the RAF had ever been Hunter DA. That is, the accident aircraft's Airworthiness Approval Note, reproduced in the AAIB report, was based on a false premise. Which is rather important, as airworthiness facilitates serviceability. G-BXFI was neither.
Perhaps a greater reason why MoD and especially the HSE would not want this discussed in detail, is that the same AAN cites the MoD documentation that disproves the allegation against Martin-Baker in the Sean Cunningham case. And the HSE was a major contributor to the AAIB report. That is called prosecutorial misconduct.
Perhaps a greater reason why MoD and especially the HSE would not want this discussed in detail, is that the same AAN cites the MoD documentation that disproves the allegation against Martin-Baker in the Sean Cunningham case. And the HSE was a major contributor to the AAIB report. That is called prosecutorial misconduct.
Dagenham
The evidence to the Shoreham Coroner in October 2019 highlighted the linkages, and this (I UNDERSTAND) was put to the CAA and AAIB. I have not seen their replies. However, I KNOW that it was put to MoD and the HSE. As I said, MoD correctly wholly refuted the accuracy of the Airworthiness Approval Note, putting the CAA on the spot. The matter was not raised in court, but if there is a judicial review.....
The HSE have confirmed they did not point out these anomalies reported (without comment) by the AAIB. Nor did they disclose to the M-B Judge that the Airworthiness Approval Note completely destroyed their case against M-B. This led to a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct, but the Lincs Chief Constable ruled that the HSE could judge their own case. I do not have the HSE's reply - they refuse to release it - but the extracts quoted by the Chief Constable make it clear he was lied to. Informed of this, and given irrefutable written and video evidence, both he an his Police and Crime Commissioner are content to let matters lie.
As a different department in the HSE had dealt with Shoreham, after the Andy Hill trial the head of the HSE was notified again of the exculpatory evidence in the M-B case, and asked if they would now review it and advise the Judge and police (the latter also being under an obligation to review it). They declined to comment. As at least 12 factors were then repeated in Jon Bayliss's death in 2018, my opinion is that M-B must take some blame there. Rolling over protected MoD, leaving it free to continue its violations. But their actions pale compared MoD and the HSE.
I hope that helps. To offer more is difficult, as the matter is sub judice in that a police investigation by another force is ongoing, and Lincs Police and Coroner should be getting a knock on the door soon. But the above is in the public domain. It's a case of reading up on the cases and drawing the linkages. Which is what the authorities never do.
Originally Posted by dagenham
tuc, so is it being alleged that the shoreham verdict is on some way linked to the cover up with mb?
The evidence to the Shoreham Coroner in October 2019 highlighted the linkages, and this (I UNDERSTAND) was put to the CAA and AAIB. I have not seen their replies. However, I KNOW that it was put to MoD and the HSE. As I said, MoD correctly wholly refuted the accuracy of the Airworthiness Approval Note, putting the CAA on the spot. The matter was not raised in court, but if there is a judicial review.....
The HSE have confirmed they did not point out these anomalies reported (without comment) by the AAIB. Nor did they disclose to the M-B Judge that the Airworthiness Approval Note completely destroyed their case against M-B. This led to a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct, but the Lincs Chief Constable ruled that the HSE could judge their own case. I do not have the HSE's reply - they refuse to release it - but the extracts quoted by the Chief Constable make it clear he was lied to. Informed of this, and given irrefutable written and video evidence, both he an his Police and Crime Commissioner are content to let matters lie.
As a different department in the HSE had dealt with Shoreham, after the Andy Hill trial the head of the HSE was notified again of the exculpatory evidence in the M-B case, and asked if they would now review it and advise the Judge and police (the latter also being under an obligation to review it). They declined to comment. As at least 12 factors were then repeated in Jon Bayliss's death in 2018, my opinion is that M-B must take some blame there. Rolling over protected MoD, leaving it free to continue its violations. But their actions pale compared MoD and the HSE.
I hope that helps. To offer more is difficult, as the matter is sub judice in that a police investigation by another force is ongoing, and Lincs Police and Coroner should be getting a knock on the door soon. But the above is in the public domain. It's a case of reading up on the cases and drawing the linkages. Which is what the authorities never do.
The following 7 users liked this post by tucumseh:
I think Tuc and Chug are pointing to the fact that the systemic failings here stretch back a very long time - and TBH seem to continue into the foreseeable future unless someone cleans the stables.
The following 3 users liked this post by Asturias56:
Originally Posted by ORAC
Link to BBC report above.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64503147
Shoreham air crash: Pilot seeks judicial review of inquest verdict
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-64503147
Shoreham air crash: Pilot seeks judicial review of inquest verdict
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
There’s an old saying: “The longer you hold onto a hot coal, the more it burns”.
...“You can tell a lot about the author by what they write"
Inquests are odd. I gave evidence at one years ago. The cause of death was bleedin' obvious. Self-inflicted death by the idiocy of the the deceased. The coroner bent over backwards to ignore the obvious and make out the deceased idiot hadn't been reckless and stupid. Recorded a narrative verdict that absolved the deceased from the massive contribution he made towards his death. I came away convinced that the system was rigged to make the relatives feel better, not uncover the truth.
Can't comment on the Hunter inquest. I wasn't there. Sounds to me as if the coroner felt the victims needed someone to blame to make them feel better. Easy to blame the pilot. Far harder to place blame fairly on all the organisations that were grossly negligent.
Off topic, but I'm certain we will see the same with Grenfell.
Can't comment on the Hunter inquest. I wasn't there. Sounds to me as if the coroner felt the victims needed someone to blame to make them feel better. Easy to blame the pilot. Far harder to place blame fairly on all the organisations that were grossly negligent.
Off topic, but I'm certain we will see the same with Grenfell.
Agra, where are you on the moon landings and JFK?
On the topic... if you take it all the way back, and the Hunter were not invented, this would not happened*. What I'm saying, is that people seem to want to show that the flying aspect was the tip of a larger sh1tberg; and AH is taking the fall. Or have I got that wrong. I've never done a loop, but I have learned that there's an entry speed and a minimum height needed to complete one. Have I got that wrong too? The pilot had neither (AAIB).
CG
*facetious of course...
On the topic... if you take it all the way back, and the Hunter were not invented, this would not happened*. What I'm saying, is that people seem to want to show that the flying aspect was the tip of a larger sh1tberg; and AH is taking the fall. Or have I got that wrong. I've never done a loop, but I have learned that there's an entry speed and a minimum height needed to complete one. Have I got that wrong too? The pilot had neither (AAIB).
CG
*facetious of course...
Originally Posted by charliegolf
if you take it all the way back, and the Hunter were not invented, this would not happened*. What I'm saying, is that people seem to want to show that the flying aspect was the tip of a larger sh1tberg; and AH is taking the fall. Or have I got that wrong. I've never done a loop, but I have learned that there's an entry speed and a minimum height needed to complete one. Have I got that wrong too? The pilot had neither (AAIB).
CG
*facetious of course...
CG
*facetious of course...
The AAIB report did say he got it wrong, and the pilot admitted that. The question the Coroner was not allowed to ask (by High Court order), was WHY? The pilot could not explain it, and a defence of Cognitive Impairment was advanced, and was successful at his trial. I cannot comment on that, as I’m not medically trained. But without answering that question it could be argued the Coroner went too far with her decision.
There‘s been a lot of criticism here about this defence, but little about the RAF advancing self-inflicted CI as a root cause of a high profile fatal accident a few years before, which tended to divert from more obvious root causes. Such as, the aircraft was not airworthy, serviceable or fit for purpose, and the pilot not being told this.
The following 5 users liked this post by tucumseh:
The AAIB report did say he got it wrong, and the pilot admitted that.
Your endless arguments about airworthiness indicate that you might not understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness, and give me the impression that you are apologising for the pilot and attempting to shift the blame for the fatalities onto others.
In case you did not know, the captain of an aircraft is responsible for deciding whether the aircraft is serviceable and fit to continue on its planned flight. If he decides it is not serviceable, he always has the immediate option of discontinuing his mission and landing at the nearest suitable airfield. All other arguments about airworthiness or maintenance or management are irrelevant and serve only to fog the primary issue. This captain decided to continue with his routine when inverted at the top of a looping manoeuvre.
Last edited by mike rondot; 9th Feb 2023 at 07:57. Reason: typo
The following 9 users liked this post by mike rondot:
Originally Posted by mike rondot
No he didn't, he pleaded Not Guilty and his artful brief got him off on the novel defence of a brain fart that baffled the brain(s) of the jury.
Your endless arguments about airworthiness indicate that you might not understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness, and give me the impression that you are apologising for the pilot and attempting to shift the blame for the fatalities onto others.
In case you did not know, the captain of an aircraft is responsible for deciding whether the aircraft is serviceable and fit to continue on its planned flight. If he decides it is not serviceable, he always has the immediate option of discontinuing his mission and landing at the nearest suitable airfield. All other arguments about airworthiness or maintenance or management are irrelevant and serve only to fog the primary issue. This captain decided to continue with his routine when inverted at the top of a looping manoeuvre.
Your endless arguments about airworthiness indicate that you might not understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness, and give me the impression that you are apologising for the pilot and attempting to shift the blame for the fatalities onto others.
In case you did not know, the captain of an aircraft is responsible for deciding whether the aircraft is serviceable and fit to continue on its planned flight. If he decides it is not serviceable, he always has the immediate option of discontinuing his mission and landing at the nearest suitable airfield. All other arguments about airworthiness or maintenance or management are irrelevant and serve only to fog the primary issue. This captain decided to continue with his routine when inverted at the top of a looping manoeuvre.
The pilot pleaded not guilty to gross negligence manslaughter. He admitted the errors in the manouevre, but couldn't explain them except for the CI defence. These are quite different issues and it is disingenuous to conflate them.
You criticise me for 'endless' arguments. Two things must then be true:
1. Given my arguments have been proven valid in legal reviews and in courts, but the failings are still recurring, then those responsible are still not doing their job, but still making false declarations that they are. Do you have a similar pop at those responsible for that? If not, please tell us why. If you have, I'd be interested in their reply.
2. As you say 'endless', that implies you have read some of my posts, which will have revealed I know the difference between attaining and maintaining airworthiness, serviceability, and fitness for purpose; and how to do all four in practice; and on both aircraft and equipment. I can only infer, therefore, you believe it acceptable that the accident aircraft should not have been flying, but was declared airworthy, etc. If you do not think that a mitigating factor, even if the pilot were found guilty, then you are entitled to your opinion.
I have never commented on the airmanship aspects of the flight. I am in no position to. But I certainly do not think it reasonable that Mr Hill should have been expected to know, for example, that his master airspeed indicator and g-meter were unserviceable, and the fuel pump diaphragm rotted, if this was not declared to him. And how many pilots here can honestly say they could look at the Airworthiness Approval Note (reproduced by the AAIB) and realise that it was based on an entirely false premise (a premise that was NEVER true, even when in military service), and so there could be no airworthiness or serviceability audit trail? I'd hazard a guess very few. Similarly, the CAA and MoD didn't spot it; and if the AAIB did, they didn't say anything, yet pointed out other reasons why it wasn't airworthy. Have you written to the regulator to ask why they issued such an Approval Note, and if they have checked others to see if it's a widespread cockup?
There have been many threads here over the years that have revealed the same thing. Chinook ZD576. Nimrod XV230. Tornado ZG710. Sea Kings XV650 & 704. Hawk XX177. Hercules XV179. Not one of them airworthy, to varying degrees, yet false declarations made to the pilots that they were. (The Sea Kings were the closest, and ironically that is the only one where the Board of Inquiry spelt it out in detail). Only in the Chinook case is it known the aircraft captain suspected as much, but was in no position to prove it. In EACH case others met their duty and reported the failures, but their concerns were rejected. Have you had a pop at those who decided to lie to aircrew and passengers, or those who knew but did not report it? Their names are known in each case. Write to them and again let us know what they say. I'm not sure they'll give you the courtesy of a reply, as I do.
The following 10 users liked this post by tucumseh:
I think the elephant in the room is not so much airworthiness as display safety. It being an entirely foreseeable event that an aircraft crash on its display line, appropriate mitigations were not in place. AH is responsible as the commander for the handling and the aircraft crashing. He was not in any way responsible for Shoreham Airshow’s planning and risk assessment that allowed him to be displaying over a major road. IMO these are the individuals and offices who should have faced far more scrutiny from the coroner.
The following users liked this post:
Here we go again ...
...
Oh dear ... here we go again ...
If anyone should actually wish to read any of the technical arguments supporting Tucumseh's posts above, might I recommend some learned books authored by David Hill (who I presume is no relation to Andy Hill)
"Breaking the Military Covenant - Who speaks for the Dead ?" "Red 5" (the death of F/Lt Sean Cunningham) and "A Noble Anger - the Manslaughter of Corporal Jonathan Bayliss" are among his titles readily available as €-books from the usual place.
While I could not for myself claim that what David Hill writes is 100% true or accurate (because I do not have the technical knowledge and intelligence required to make such a claim) his books are eminently readable, should any of the nay-sayers and apologists be so inclined.
It requires IMHO only a little aviation and technical knowledge to make sense of the author's reasoning and his eloquent and compelling claims of deliberate and knowing misfeasance by government offices and officers, who always seem to avoid having to account for their misdeeds and the resulting loss of life. I doubt if he would write such damning stuff if he wasn't reasonably sure of his facts.
It's really quite depressing to realise that this shameful and sleazy escapism continues even now, which suggests they're all in the culture, jointly and severally covering their past, present and future backsides.
LFH
Oh dear ... here we go again ...
If anyone should actually wish to read any of the technical arguments supporting Tucumseh's posts above, might I recommend some learned books authored by David Hill (who I presume is no relation to Andy Hill)
"Breaking the Military Covenant - Who speaks for the Dead ?" "Red 5" (the death of F/Lt Sean Cunningham) and "A Noble Anger - the Manslaughter of Corporal Jonathan Bayliss" are among his titles readily available as €-books from the usual place.
While I could not for myself claim that what David Hill writes is 100% true or accurate (because I do not have the technical knowledge and intelligence required to make such a claim) his books are eminently readable, should any of the nay-sayers and apologists be so inclined.
It requires IMHO only a little aviation and technical knowledge to make sense of the author's reasoning and his eloquent and compelling claims of deliberate and knowing misfeasance by government offices and officers, who always seem to avoid having to account for their misdeeds and the resulting loss of life. I doubt if he would write such damning stuff if he wasn't reasonably sure of his facts.
It's really quite depressing to realise that this shameful and sleazy escapism continues even now, which suggests they're all in the culture, jointly and severally covering their past, present and future backsides.
LFH
Originally Posted by Jwscud
I think the elephant in the room is not so much airworthiness as display safety. It being an entirely foreseeable event that an aircraft crash on its display line, appropriate mitigations were not in place. AH is responsible as the commander for the handling and the aircraft crashing. He was not in any way responsible for Shoreham Airshow’s planning and risk assessment that allowed him to be displaying over a major road. IMO these are the individuals and offices who should have faced far more scrutiny from the coroner.
Originally Posted by tucumseh
A factor is considered a root cause if its removal from the problem-fault sequence would have prevented the undesirable outcome.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Leicester
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
That implies, presumably, that in a classical Swiss Cheese accident model, a single event can have multiple root causes. Or do I misunderstand ?
Originally Posted by mike rondot
No he didn't, he pleaded Not Guilty and his artful brief got him off on the novel defence of a brain fart that baffled the brain(s) of the jury.
Your endless arguments about airworthiness indicate that you might not understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness, and give me the impression that you are apologising for the pilot and attempting to shift the blame for the fatalities onto others.
In case you did not know, the captain of an aircraft is responsible for deciding whether the aircraft is serviceable and fit to continue on its planned flight. If he decides it is not serviceable, he always has the immediate option of discontinuing his mission and landing at the nearest suitable airfield. All other arguments about airworthiness or maintenance or management are irrelevant and serve only to fog the primary issue. This captain decided to continue with his routine when inverted at the top of a looping manoeuvre.
Your endless arguments about airworthiness indicate that you might not understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness, and give me the impression that you are apologising for the pilot and attempting to shift the blame for the fatalities onto others.
In case you did not know, the captain of an aircraft is responsible for deciding whether the aircraft is serviceable and fit to continue on its planned flight. If he decides it is not serviceable, he always has the immediate option of discontinuing his mission and landing at the nearest suitable airfield. All other arguments about airworthiness or maintenance or management are irrelevant and serve only to fog the primary issue. This captain decided to continue with his routine when inverted at the top of a looping manoeuvre.
I can only surmise that you (and those who chose to endorse your rant) feel that any airworthiness shortcomings in the aircraft might diminish the pilot's shortcomings that were involved in this tragedy. tuc has always distanced himself from discussions of airmanship, not only in this thread but in the too many other airworthiness related accident threads in this forum. His speciality is airworthiness, and your condescending dig that he doesn't understand the difference with that and serviceability simply undermines any argument that you may have to offer. I wonder if you know the difference yourself? You say a pilot is responsible for deciding if the aircraft is serviceable for the planned flight. How, other than to carry out his checks, external and internal, and by studying the F700? In reality he is placing his trust in those who signed off/deferred known defects and declared the a/c serviceable. Unfortunately, he has no such resources to turn to for its airworthiness. He has to place blind faith in those who are responsible that it is. That faith has been betrayed over and over again, witness the list in tuc's post.
You feel led to believe that tuc, and those who are in agreement with him, are apologists for the pilot. Why, by pointing out that the aircraft was unairworthy and should have never been cleared to fly by the CAA? That is the point he makes (and I), and no amount of personal attacks can change that. Perhaps you are an apologist for the RAF VSOs who carried out the attacks on UK Military Air Safety, and of other RAF VSOs who have managed the cover up since. If I say that your posts give me the impression that you are, does that justify me saying so? No? Then don't do so either.
You can think what you like about the airmanship, or lack of it, involved in this tragedy. As an ex FJ you have a better grasp of that than I anyway. By attacking the very notion that airworthiness, or lack of it, is irrelevant to the accident leads me to query the professionalism to which this site is dedicated (it's the first P in PPRuNe!).
The following 3 users liked this post by Chugalug2:
I don’t really understand this argument.
Was the aircraft airworthy……… No
Did the pilot screw up……………Yes
Would the pilot still have screwed up in an airworthy and serviceable aircraft……Probably
Surely all of the above can be true?
Was the aircraft airworthy……… No
Did the pilot screw up……………Yes
Would the pilot still have screwed up in an airworthy and serviceable aircraft……Probably
Surely all of the above can be true?
