Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV.
People not connected with the units involved, free from any pressure that senior officers might be applying, in order to ensure that all possibilities were considered. I was Air member for a BOI in the past; I lived and breathed the investigation, but at each stage there was an independent there, to challenge our assumptions and ensure we considered all eventualities.Nowadays that is the role of the DAIB, but they have just formalised the independence; it always existed.
Which you would know if you had ever served on a BOI or an SI, but you haven’t, have you Jimmy? You think you know how it works but you don’t. Because you’ve been out of it for so long that you only have experience of pouring over what is available on line, making up those conspiracy theories in your silly little head, and behaving for all the world like some weird amateur ambulance chaser. Do yourself a favour and give it a rest eh?
People not connected with the units involved, free from any pressure that senior officers might be applying, in order to ensure that all possibilities were considered. I was Air member for a BOI in the past; I lived and breathed the investigation, but at each stage there was an independent there, to challenge our assumptions and ensure we considered all eventualities.Nowadays that is the role of the DAIB, but they have just formalised the independence; it always existed.
Which you would know if you had ever served on a BOI or an SI, but you haven’t, have you Jimmy? You think you know how it works but you don’t. Because you’ve been out of it for so long that you only have experience of pouring over what is available on line, making up those conspiracy theories in your silly little head, and behaving for all the world like some weird amateur ambulance chaser. Do yourself a favour and give it a rest eh?
Last edited by Homelover; 3rd Aug 2019 at 16:25. Reason: Add detail
Which reminds me of the various Boards of Inquiry discussed here, where MoD flatly denied the existence of key policies and documents, only for the likes of DV and others to simply download them and submit them to Coroners Walker and Masters, Haddon-Cave and Lord Philip.
"We never heard of ESF until after XV179 crashed in 2005". Mr Masters was most interested in the 1990 specifications, downloaded from MoD's website.
Air Staff - "There is no such thing as a Release to Service". Lord Philip probably though it quite amusing to be sent a copy of the Air Staff copy.
Chinook ZD576 - "We don't have the policy on Safety Critical Software". Here we go.... handed out to every MoD avionic project manager, and here's the Def Stans that reflect these Ministerial edicts. Oh, and here's the author, a retired Sqn Ldr.
And the classic e-mail plea from Lord Philip. "MoD don't have the policy document that sets out the No Doubt Whatsover rule. Can you provide a copy?" Every addressee sent him a copy.
And quite recently - We carried out a thorough investigation and there is no evidence of MoD knowing how to ensure the ejection seat works. Well, apart from a 107 minute RAF training film found on the internet along with a raft of comprehensive APs. How can a thorough investigation fail to even ask the question, or Google "ejection set + training". Did no one 'challenge the assumption' (and later statement under oath) that between 1952 and 2011 no one in MoD was taught how to ensure a parachute deployed?
The people who sat on those Boards were no doubt very good at their day jobs. But not one of them got remotely near the root causes. And true Subject Matter Experts weren't allowed near the Boards. And then the reports were 'independently' scrutinised and issued by those allowed to judge their own case. And no, of course this doesn't apply to all Boards. But it does to the cases DV is discussing.
Who benefitted?
Play the ball, not the man. Let's hear your views on the above examples.
"We never heard of ESF until after XV179 crashed in 2005". Mr Masters was most interested in the 1990 specifications, downloaded from MoD's website.
Air Staff - "There is no such thing as a Release to Service". Lord Philip probably though it quite amusing to be sent a copy of the Air Staff copy.
Chinook ZD576 - "We don't have the policy on Safety Critical Software". Here we go.... handed out to every MoD avionic project manager, and here's the Def Stans that reflect these Ministerial edicts. Oh, and here's the author, a retired Sqn Ldr.
And the classic e-mail plea from Lord Philip. "MoD don't have the policy document that sets out the No Doubt Whatsover rule. Can you provide a copy?" Every addressee sent him a copy.
And quite recently - We carried out a thorough investigation and there is no evidence of MoD knowing how to ensure the ejection seat works. Well, apart from a 107 minute RAF training film found on the internet along with a raft of comprehensive APs. How can a thorough investigation fail to even ask the question, or Google "ejection set + training". Did no one 'challenge the assumption' (and later statement under oath) that between 1952 and 2011 no one in MoD was taught how to ensure a parachute deployed?
The people who sat on those Boards were no doubt very good at their day jobs. But not one of them got remotely near the root causes. And true Subject Matter Experts weren't allowed near the Boards. And then the reports were 'independently' scrutinised and issued by those allowed to judge their own case. And no, of course this doesn't apply to all Boards. But it does to the cases DV is discussing.
Who benefitted?
Play the ball, not the man. Let's hear your views on the above examples.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tecumseh.
I dont one have a view, because I wasn’t involved in those inquiries, so I don’t know all the facts. And I’ll refrain from answering until I do. But I was asked a simple question by DV: “who provided independence?” and I believe I answered that question. Of note, the cases you refer to are instances of inaccuracy given to public inquiries, not the Service Inquiries on the same incidents.
I dont agree with DVs agenda; I make no secret of that. I’m done.
I dont one have a view, because I wasn’t involved in those inquiries, so I don’t know all the facts. And I’ll refrain from answering until I do. But I was asked a simple question by DV: “who provided independence?” and I believe I answered that question. Of note, the cases you refer to are instances of inaccuracy given to public inquiries, not the Service Inquiries on the same incidents.
I dont agree with DVs agenda; I make no secret of that. I’m done.
Homelover
Does that mean you WERE involved in the inquiries DV refers to?
The Boards in the cases I mentioned were serially misled, and some blatantly lied to, by other parts of MoD. The inaccuracies/misleading/dissembling simply continued at the public and legal inquiries. Even so, the Board/SI members would have been expected to know this but their investigations simply didn't 'go there'. When told, the 'independent' convening authorities did nothing, and we had recurrences. But let me know when you read the evidence. Constructive feedback is always welcome.
I think DV's question still stands. Who provides independence? It isn't the convening authority; shown all too clearly in the XX177 case, where it was directly involved in the decision that killed Flt Lt Cunningham, yet provided the Prosecution's 'star witness'.
Does that mean you WERE involved in the inquiries DV refers to?
The Boards in the cases I mentioned were serially misled, and some blatantly lied to, by other parts of MoD. The inaccuracies/misleading/dissembling simply continued at the public and legal inquiries. Even so, the Board/SI members would have been expected to know this but their investigations simply didn't 'go there'. When told, the 'independent' convening authorities did nothing, and we had recurrences. But let me know when you read the evidence. Constructive feedback is always welcome.
I think DV's question still stands. Who provides independence? It isn't the convening authority; shown all too clearly in the XX177 case, where it was directly involved in the decision that killed Flt Lt Cunningham, yet provided the Prosecution's 'star witness'.
Tecumseh.
I dont one have a view, because I wasn’t involved in those inquiries, so I don’t know all the facts. And I’ll refrain from answering until I do. But I was asked a simple question by DV: “who provided independence?” and I believe I answered that question. Of note, the cases you refer to are instances of inaccuracy given to public inquiries, not the Service Inquiries on the same incidents.
I dont agree with DVs agenda; I make no secret of that. I’m done.
I dont one have a view, because I wasn’t involved in those inquiries, so I don’t know all the facts. And I’ll refrain from answering until I do. But I was asked a simple question by DV: “who provided independence?” and I believe I answered that question. Of note, the cases you refer to are instances of inaccuracy given to public inquiries, not the Service Inquiries on the same incidents.
I dont agree with DVs agenda; I make no secret of that. I’m done.
DV's 'agenda' is to reform UK Military Air Accident Investigation and insure its independence from anyone and anywhere, what's yours?
As to answering his question I can't see that you've answered it at all, other than to say in effect that UK BoIs/SIs are independent because they are independent. Mr Spock might have had something to say about that response...
If we could get back to the Shoreham incident, and discussion pertaining to that, it would be great.
Whether or not the MoD has the means or the desire to reopen that Tornado investigation 25 years later would surely warrant a thread of its own?
Whether or not the MoD has the means or the desire to reopen that Tornado investigation 25 years later would surely warrant a thread of its own?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’ve PM’d both those who continue to question my assertion on independence, as I’m not going to enter into futher discussion on an open forum where there is a tendency for what is written to end up as an FOI or a PQ. And I absolutely agree we’ve drifted.
Back to it; I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that Andy Hill reminds them of a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. If you start a loop too low and too slow, and don’t abandon it when you don’t make your gate height at the top, then you’re guilty of poor judgement and poor airmanship. If you continue with the manoeuvre and you end up killing innocent people, then your decisions must be held to account. It’s time to hold your hands up and say “guilty as charged”.
Back to it; I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that Andy Hill reminds them of a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. If you start a loop too low and too slow, and don’t abandon it when you don’t make your gate height at the top, then you’re guilty of poor judgement and poor airmanship. If you continue with the manoeuvre and you end up killing innocent people, then your decisions must be held to account. It’s time to hold your hands up and say “guilty as charged”.
However, as legal authorities continually fail to pursue others responsible for even more deaths, despite irrefutable evidence, Mr Hill was entitled to think 'Why pick on me?' and plead not guilty. We need some consistency. His legal team played a blinder and the Prosecution was unprepared. Which in no way should detract from the tragic deaths.
Last edited by tucumseh; 5th Aug 2019 at 20:03. Reason: open to misinterpretation, sorry.
Homelover - I’ve stayed out of jousting with you because you seem so far out of kilter that I imagined that you would be rapidly shot down. But your latest references to puppy poo, and your statement that
are so far beyond the facts that I have to confront you.
Andrew Hill was not “guilty as charged”. A jury of eleven people unanimously found him not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. That after an Old Bailey trial that lasted eight weeks, and included a day’s consideration by the jury of their verdict.
I was there for almost all the eight weeks of the trial, and it was my firm impression that the jury, encouraged by the judge, formed their judgement after hearing the evidence of the expert witnesses for the defence.
Of course, if you were only able to form your judgements from the reporting in many national newspapers, you might have missed that. Most of their reporters were noticeably absent from much of the trial. In fact, they seemed largely to have drawn their conclusions from the opening presentations of the prosecution - which were later roundly demolished by defence witnesses. But by that time, those national paper reporters had lost interest. Not so the jury, who were obliged, of course, to consider all the evidence.
airsound
If you start a loop too low and too slow, and don’t abandon it when you don’t make your gate height at the top, then you’re guilty of poor judgement and poor airmanship. If you continue with the manoeuvre and you end up killing innocent people, then your decisions must be held to account. It’s time to hold your hands up and say “guilty as charged”.
Andrew Hill was not “guilty as charged”. A jury of eleven people unanimously found him not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. That after an Old Bailey trial that lasted eight weeks, and included a day’s consideration by the jury of their verdict.
I was there for almost all the eight weeks of the trial, and it was my firm impression that the jury, encouraged by the judge, formed their judgement after hearing the evidence of the expert witnesses for the defence.
Of course, if you were only able to form your judgements from the reporting in many national newspapers, you might have missed that. Most of their reporters were noticeably absent from much of the trial. In fact, they seemed largely to have drawn their conclusions from the opening presentations of the prosecution - which were later roundly demolished by defence witnesses. But by that time, those national paper reporters had lost interest. Not so the jury, who were obliged, of course, to consider all the evidence.
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 5th Aug 2019 at 19:57.
Homelover, as a recipient of one of those pm's in which you continue to attack DV and call him a troll, as well as informing me that I am a fool to believe that he wants to reform Mil Air Accident Investigation, I would appreciate it if you played the ball rather than the man (no more Latin tags you'll notice!).
Whatever the pros and cons of the AAIB's findings in this case, at least they are the AAIB's and not that of someone else pulling its strings.
As you seem to have an aversion to PQ's and FoI's, perhaps the answer is for the MOD to stop withholding information and lying in FoI replies. If in addition it followed its own regulations in the first place there would be far more resources for it to devote to safety.
Tuc is right, there is a queue of those who have issued rulings and illegal orders. People have died as a consequence. The RAF has been diminished in its capability as a consequence. Should they be required to make a plea, or just Andy Hill?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE
Of course, if you were only able to form your judgements from the reporting in many national newspapers, you might have missed that.
airsound[/QUOTE]
Actually Airsound, I formed my judgement from knowing that, if you are flying a fast jet, doing aerobatics at Low Level, and you attempt to pull through when you haven’t made your gate height, then you are likely to hit the ground, even if you pull as hard as you can - into the deep stall as it happens- in the latter part of your ill-judged manoeuvre. So you will have made an error of judgement, or poor decision, or displayed poor airmanship, or whatever you wish to call it. And if people end up dead because of that error, then.... do I need to go on?
Of course, if you were only able to form your judgements from the reporting in many national newspapers, you might have missed that.
airsound[/QUOTE]
Actually Airsound, I formed my judgement from knowing that, if you are flying a fast jet, doing aerobatics at Low Level, and you attempt to pull through when you haven’t made your gate height, then you are likely to hit the ground, even if you pull as hard as you can - into the deep stall as it happens- in the latter part of your ill-judged manoeuvre. So you will have made an error of judgement, or poor decision, or displayed poor airmanship, or whatever you wish to call it. And if people end up dead because of that error, then.... do I need to go on?
Homelover
Your position addresses airmanship (which I cannot and do not comment on), but as a military pilot and past Board member you will know that MoD's stated criteria also includes technical and legal (and hence illegal); and in this case Mr Hill's defence added medical. I'm sure you'd want the same criteria to apply equally. And so to Chug's final sentence. Should those directly responsible for, say, civilian deaths in military aircraft (e.g. ZD576), be subject to the same scrutiny as Mr Hill? I see no difference, but none have even been interviewed, never mind charged. All I ask for is consistency.
And no, it isn't thread drift, because there is a great deal of overlap, not least in the legal authorities who took the decision to prosecute Mr Hill, while concurrently ignoring what was effectively a series of confessions by MoD in various SI/BoI reports.
Your position addresses airmanship (which I cannot and do not comment on), but as a military pilot and past Board member you will know that MoD's stated criteria also includes technical and legal (and hence illegal); and in this case Mr Hill's defence added medical. I'm sure you'd want the same criteria to apply equally. And so to Chug's final sentence. Should those directly responsible for, say, civilian deaths in military aircraft (e.g. ZD576), be subject to the same scrutiny as Mr Hill? I see no difference, but none have even been interviewed, never mind charged. All I ask for is consistency.
And no, it isn't thread drift, because there is a great deal of overlap, not least in the legal authorities who took the decision to prosecute Mr Hill, while concurrently ignoring what was effectively a series of confessions by MoD in various SI/BoI reports.
Homelover
Juries are unlikely to contain aerobatic pilots, and lawyers are skilled at leading them in areas in which they have no expertise. This jury was persuaded that a pilot with a class 1 medial might have experienced a mental impairment during the loop and was therefore not responsible for busting his gate. Despite the point you make, and I made earlier in the thread, the clever legal eagles won the day by using an argument that could not be disproved.
Juries are unlikely to contain aerobatic pilots, and lawyers are skilled at leading them in areas in which they have no expertise. This jury was persuaded that a pilot with a class 1 medial might have experienced a mental impairment during the loop and was therefore not responsible for busting his gate. Despite the point you make, and I made earlier in the thread, the clever legal eagles won the day by using an argument that could not be disproved.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Alderaan System
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh - The thread is about the Shoreham trial. You continue to try to take this away from the discussion, evidenced by your latest chat about ZD756. That is thread drift. End of.
Captain Scribble. - Agreed. I think the aircrew on here know what really happened and so do the AAIB. Unfortunately, Andy Hill’s Defence lawyer was ‘better’ than the Prosecution.
Captain Scribble. - Agreed. I think the aircrew on here know what really happened and so do the AAIB. Unfortunately, Andy Hill’s Defence lawyer was ‘better’ than the Prosecution.
Last edited by Homelover; 5th Aug 2019 at 23:20. Reason: Add detail.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh - The thread is about the Shoreham trial. You continue to try to take this away from the discussion, evidenced by your latest chat about ZD756. That is thread drift. End of.
Captain Scribble. - Agreed. I think the aircrew on here know what really happened and so do the AAIB. Unfortunately, the Andy Hill’s Defence lawyer was ‘better’ than the Prosecution.
Captain Scribble. - Agreed. I think the aircrew on here know what really happened and so do the AAIB. Unfortunately, the Andy Hill’s Defence lawyer was ‘better’ than the Prosecution.
surely the only way to be completely sure board members aren't being diddled is to ensure they are a completely separate entity in career/employment and fiscally?
How many times have you heard the phrase spoken, in jest or not, "it ain't worth my pension"??
Is there a definition anywhere for what constitutes “cognitive impairment” in the aviation context, and is it related to what most mil aircrew call “capacity”?
i ask because as has previously been noted it seems more of an aged/dementia related issue than one likely to be brought about through the sheer act of flying...
i ask because as has previously been noted it seems more of an aged/dementia related issue than one likely to be brought about through the sheer act of flying...
[QUOTE=Homelover;10537684][LEFT]Tucumseh - The thread is about the Shoreham trial. You continue to try to take this away from the discussion, evidenced by your latest chat about ZD756. That is thread drift. End of.
No. I'm afraid you continue to deprecate someone who has been found not guilty after a fair trial. But do not seem to want the same depth of investigation into those who caused far more civilian deaths, despite dire warnings as to the consequences of their illegal actions. It would be nice to know why the different attitude. It's not just you. We've seen it before here, and the legal system is the same. The recurring themes are (a) the relative seniority of the persons involved, and (b) only looking at the final act. Another factor is the different role of the AAIB when looking at civilian accidents, and assisting in military ones. Very seldom does the AAIB get to tell the whole story in a military accident. ZD576 is always a good example, even though the AAIB had to wait 16 years.
No. I'm afraid you continue to deprecate someone who has been found not guilty after a fair trial. But do not seem to want the same depth of investigation into those who caused far more civilian deaths, despite dire warnings as to the consequences of their illegal actions. It would be nice to know why the different attitude. It's not just you. We've seen it before here, and the legal system is the same. The recurring themes are (a) the relative seniority of the persons involved, and (b) only looking at the final act. Another factor is the different role of the AAIB when looking at civilian accidents, and assisting in military ones. Very seldom does the AAIB get to tell the whole story in a military accident. ZD576 is always a good example, even though the AAIB had to wait 16 years.
Tuc's point is well made that you call for further action against Andy Hill yet seem relaxed that RAF VSOs issued illegal orders to subvert the airworthiness regulations, covered up ever since by succeeding RAF VSOs. I'd call that pertinent comment rather than thread drift.
Your personal attacks on those you disagree with is pure thread drift as well as obnoxious behaviour. Oh, and the Latin quoted above is just for you.
