Human Error
 

I agree Mike but they can comment on human error as a factor. I am sure that BALPA will be a source of comfort to Andy let's hope this does not drag on too long both for Andy and the families and victims of this sad accident.

http://www.aaib.gov.mn/uploads/50ff3...p4_cons_en.pdf

How utterly ridiculous, if the AAIB find evidence that a pilot was at fault then they should be able to simply say so.

The title of this thread continues to trouble me a little - given the scale of the accident, it seems to dwell on the aeroplane rather than the human tragedy. Might "something like "Accident at Shoreham Airshow" be more appropriate. Late in the day I know, and original title probably OK until the scale of loss of life became apparent.

Once again someone has appeared here with a commendable sound bite. If only life were as simple as that. If only the cause of every accident were a matter of a single fault.

You declare yourself as "jet fan". What a shame your enthusiasm doesn't stretch as far as the people that fly them.

If your comment is in context with the subject of the thread, then perhaps you would like to explain who you think needs to "man up".

Then you need to understand the role of the AAIB and the purpose of improving flight safety. You might wish to put your understandable misunderstanding of the purpose of flight safety organisations aside for a moment and consider the roles of the various organisations involved and how best they achieve their aims.

Again, Courtney, I agree.

I am absolutely disgusted with the way some so-called aviation enthusiasts have ridiculed Andy, without knowing the full facts. I am also disgusted with the media. He appears to be physically back on his feet, but anybody with half a brain would understand that mentally, he still has many years of recovery time, if he ever manages to recover at all. That doesn't stop the media from trying to be the first to publish a pathetic story.

It's good to see that he is recovering physically. I'd imagine mentally will be much much harder.

I still find it incredible that he survived the accident.

Apologies to all: I said "under oath", I meant "under caution".

EAP

I would be cautious when new people register with sites such as these with obviously polarised views on this kind of issue. I don't wish to be unkind, but this does happen at times like this. Maybe another reason for being guarded about careless opinions.

Courtney Mil, I agree with both your points, but I suspect you will either need to explain your points (again) to those you quote or expand on your post. Most of us get it, but the visitors here may not.

Good luck.

Your attitude harks back to the days of Dixon of Dock Green "fair cop Guv, you've got me dead to rights."

In today's world few people hold their hands up.

In this case, there will be many factors contributing to this accident and holding up one's hand prematurely could actually, in many people's minds, inhibit determination of the most likely cause.

I get it fine Pontious, my point is that I believe findings from an investigation shouldn't be dressed up, why not point fingers if that is their opinion, based on their findings.
At some point the findings and the investigators maybe called upon and used in court proceedings, they could be asked from their findings if they considered X,Y OR Z to be at fault. Why not just say so in their report?

Jayland, would not a declaration of blame by an expert official body not be taken by an impartial jury as de facto evidence and thus create undue bias?

Jayand

My understanding is that the AAIB do not attribute blame and are very careful not to do so. They report the circumstances that led to the accident and may make recommendations but they are not, repeat not, regulators. IMHO that is why they are trusted by the professional aviation community.

The role of the CAA and the police is quite different and for good reason. What has caused disquiet is the idea that evidence gathered by the AAIB for its technical investigation may be used in a prosecution. This has been discussed elsewhere on pprune at great detail if you are genuinely interested. Sorry for the thread drift.

Back on the thread. It's welcome news that AH is recovering. I recently flew with an ex colleague of his and he spoke very highly of him. Not forgetting the families of those also affected by this awful tragedy one of whom is a friend of a friend.

BBK

I agree. I can't fathom how this is so difficult for the general public to comprehend. Lots have been asking for the AAIB to state exactly who/what was at fault, but this would be a flaw in the administration of justice and has the potential to result in a person being wrongly convicted, and then allows the potential for a person to have their conviction overturned at appeal when in fact, they should have remained a convicted criminal.*

*I am not suggesting that this is the case for Andy, as I do not know enough of the facts to make such a sweeping statement, however, a person has the right to a fair trial. This then gives the families of victims some form of closure when the person concerned has been dealt with in the best way possible, and there was no doubt that they were guilty.

OK, say for example then a civil or crown court case was brought againtst a pilot involved in a fatal crash, who gives expert evidence to the court? Would it not be the AAIB? and if so how do they answer a question of liability?
If a crash was and I'm talking hypothetically here caused entirely by pilot error how do the AAIB word there report without saying as such??
I can understand the prejudicial worries, but if that is the case then surely they should say nothing until court, unless court action isn't needed.

By omission? Would they not simply state, that their extensive investigation could identify no mechanical or technical failure; failure in maintenance, or external factor such as ATC or weather.

CG

In a report you would present the facts and if inevitable that might appear open and shut case - the undercarriage was found to be fully serviceable and there was no evidence of malfunction.

In court "I put it to you, is it possible the pilot failed to lower the undercarriage?"

"Yes"

"No further questions your honour"

It would then be left to the defence to elicit many alternative explanations.

The difference is cross examination in open forum.

Hypothetically, what happens if that pilot decides to save the AAIB a lot of work and tells them, "I completely forgot to lower the undercarriage, don't know what I was thinking"? Or if a mechanic states that he omitted to tighten a hydraulic connector correctly, causing the undercarriage to malfunction?

Does the report merely state that there was no evidence of malfunction (in the first case) or that the connector was examined and "appeared" to have been incorrectly tightened?

Not suggesting any parallels with the cause of this incident, but genuinely curious as to how far the AAIB go to spare the blushes of an individual who admits some liability?

Surely that is a no brainer

"The cause of the accident was the failure of the pilot to lower the undercarriage"

Or am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.

Finding, the aircraft landed with the landing gear retracted.

Finding, the pilot did not lower the landing gear.

Finding, the pilot was distracted by the interview with HR just before flight to discuss his sickness record as part of the redundancy selection process etc etc

You get the drift...