Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial

[dagenham]

Originally Posted by dervish

Nailed it.

actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here

1. airworthiness and sign off
2. accreditation and sign off
3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events

all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ?

everything cannot be lumped only into point 1…..

[dervish]

Originally Posted by dagenham

actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here

1. airworthiness and sign off
2. accreditation and sign off
3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events

all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ?

everything cannot be lumped only into point 1…..

I'm at a loss. Your post has nothing to do with Chugalug's or mine. He replied to a specific point made by someone else and was accurate, and nowhere implies "airworthiness and sign off" are the sole issues on Shoreham. By asking if causality between your 3 points has been proven, you are just repeating what he has already said and is true. I've read the accident report and it mentions all 3 but doesn't attempt to link them. That doesn't mean there is no link. It means the investigation was crap.

[dagenham]

Originally Posted by dervish

I'm at a loss. Your post has nothing to do with Chugalug's or mine. He replied to a specific point made by someone else and was accurate, and nowhere implies "airworthiness and sign off" are the sole issues on Shoreham. By asking if causality between your 3 points has been proven, you are just repeating what he has already said and is true. I've read the accident report and it mentions all 3 but doesn't attempt to link them. That doesn't mean there is no link. It means the investigation was crap.

no argument to your last point ….

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by dagenham

actually no … the nimrod or mull have many parallels in terms of safety case / airworthiness, but there is still the issue that the accident could have been avoided or mitigated by appropriate manoeuvres …that where not an option in those instances….. so there are three issues here

1. airworthiness and sign off
2. accreditation and sign off
3. pilot actions and consequences or impediment to those by physiological events

all three are interconnected but has causality between been proven ?

everything cannot be lumped only into point 1…..

If you run out of argument then create a false one, is that it? No-one is saying that airworthiness should be considered alone. As Dervish has pointed out, I was merely answering D2's somewhat unique idea that having signed for it a pilot is responsible for the entire state of an aircraft including its airworthiness. Unless you share his view, I cannot see that we are in anything other than violent agreement, sorry! Indeed, the thread seems to have moved on from 'lumping' everything into point 3 of your list and now accepts that all three points are interconnected as your post states. Congratulations, we are as one!

[dagenham]

Originally Posted by Chugalug2

If you run out of argument then create a false one, is that it? No-one is saying that airworthiness should be considered alone. As Dervish has pointed out, I was merely answering D2's somewhat unique idea that having signed for it a pilot is responsible for the entire state of an aircraft including its airworthiness. Unless you share his view, I cannot see that we are in anything other than violent agreement, sorry! Indeed, the thread seems to have moved on from 'lumping' everything into point 3 of your list and now accepts that all three points are interconnected as your post states. Congratulations, we are as one!

chug I will now leave this mortal coil happy 😊

[Mike51]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-65779379

[falcon900]

In many ways, for those most immediately involved in this case, this might be for the best, as no verdicts or judgements can alter what happened and its consequences on their lives. For those wondering about civil actions by the families, I suspect the terms of their compensation payments from the insurers will preclude this.
As for the larger issues, it would appear that the band plays on till the next time. All in all a very poor advert for our “system” whereby such a serious catastrophe can be pored over by so many for so long, and yet we end up with so many obvious inadequacies in the process followed. We all have our prejudices and pet theories about what actually happened that day, and why: I would have expected a much more coherent and cogent conclusion to have been reached by now, and would have been at ease with it whether it fitted my hypothesis or not had I been able to accept that a rational process had been followed. Rather than rational, the adjectives which spring to mind are arcane and machiavellian.

[Asturias56]

A spokesperson for the West Sussex, Brighton and Hove Coroner said: "Further to the High Court's decision to refuse permission for Mr Hill to proceed with the judicial review, Mr Hill has now advised that he will not be making a request for an oral hearing to challenge that decision."

Sarah Stewart, of law firm Stewarts, who acted for the majority of the families, said the relatives of the deceased could "continue their healing process in peace".

"The families look forward to putting this chapter firmly behind them, safe in the knowledge that their voices have finally been heard," she said.


Maybe we should lock this thread?