And yet given under oath in evidence to, for example, the MoK Fatal Accident Inquiry, plus judicial inquiries. And addressed in a formal report that MoD and Government withheld for almost 25 years. (Tench January 1987). This has been stated many times on this forum over the years, notably by first hand witnesses to the briefing by a BoI President. It has also been stated here by a respected 1 Star former BoI engineering member. There is plenty of evidence, which is presumably why the Tench Report was hidden away.

Disparaging? What training is an engineering board member given that makes him able to carry out his role? Especially when senior staffs actively conceal evidence from him. That is not disparaging toward the engineer, but toward the system that permits it. Tench, again.

An interesting read

Tintagel Plane Crash Story

tucumseh, you will find it so BTW

We saw that last bit on the MoK thread with the disgusting posts by "Atlantic Cowboy". We saw the first at the FAI in 1996, when MoD's QC reckoned safety regulations were irrelevant. A view repeated at the XV230 Inquest 11 years later.

ed:-

That statement is risible given the evidence on fatal accident threads in this very forum. In one case the BoI President himself told Squadron Pilots of the real conclusions of his Board, which was greatly at variance to its published report. The reason was that they had been directed not to alienate the aircraft manufacturer stateside...

Any Military Inquiry that investigates an accident that might uncover evidence liable to bring the Military Air Regulator (the MAA/MOD) into disrepute will be so directed, although most of the effort will be in keeping such witnesses or evidence from the Inquiry in the first place. The Odiham Test Pilot being such a witness. He was never interviewed by the Mull BoI, despite urgently requesting to be so.

Wageslave,

I think that your analogy to the German Wings accident is not really valid in this debate because the weight of evidence, albeit circumstantial, is that in this accident the pilot deliberately flew the aircraft into the ground. This means that the accident was not due to 'pilot error' but was due to an intentional act that was possibly pre-meditated.

I find your comment "Let's show a bit of humility and be a bit more open minded" rather ironic when set in the context of your post. It is those who say 'It is pilot error - full stop' that are the ones who are arrogant and narrow minded not, as you imply, those who await further evidence before coming to a conclusion.

I fully endorse CM's comments in reply to your post. Pilot error occurs, but whoever the pilot was who made the error in question had no intention of causing the outcome resulting from the error. Any error, inevitably, has multiple causes of varying magnitude of influence. We may be able to identify those causes and, through education, training, review of procedures and regulation, reduce the probability of it happening again. Or we may never discover why the error was made, but almost certainly there will have been one or more reasons. In such circumstances an agnostic philosophy is, in my opinion, the best response.

I have just read the latest Pilot mag where there are details of what appears to be a radical overhaul of the current DA/DAE and FDD requirements.
My question is, would the CAA be privy to the latest AAIB findings before the publication of the final report?
The CAA have taken swift decisive action by the looks of things and one wonders if they feel as if this overhaul was long overdue.
The article makes very interesting and sobering reading.

From a previous thread:


MJ:ok:

Alain,

In effect, no. The CAA will be sent copies of the report so they don't need to go online to download it. They may be given a bit of courtesy, but we're not talking weeks or months of delay for redaction or rebuttal. Only ex-Prime Ministers get that privilege.

Alvin Steele wrote:


It is a very interesting article. I am not sufficiently familiar with the current regulations to appreciate just how much of a change that this represents. However it would appear that there is a significant change of philosophy that may be an attempt to influence the culture attending display flying.

It would appear that the move is from having the "right to display" subject to meeting the criteria to one of having to "demonstrate suitability" and meet more stringent criteria. Those familiar with the UK Firearms Act will quickly see the analogy with Section 2 (shotgun) and Section 1 (rifled barrel firearms) procedures. Indeed, the use of the phrase "right attitudes and behaviours" in relation to display pilots, evaluators and directors is again reminiscent of the language used in relation to assessing suitability to possess firearms in the UK.

Interesting times indeed.

YS

Assessment of attitude is not new to the display approval process. The emphasis may be changing, but it was already in the checklist.

As was the requirement for referees for Firearm Certificate applications to address specific questions in their submission. It was relatively easy to "tick the boxes" without actually revealing much about the applicant. The selection of referees has now moved from the "pillar of society" figure to having to provide names of those with a greater knowledge of the applicant and their circumstances. Written references are no longer required, but the referee may be contacted by an enquiry officer to discuss the applicant.

So, whilst the process is broadly the same in its purpose, the emphasis and depth of enquiry has definitely altered. I feel that a parallel process in in train with respect to DAs.

I apologise to those not familiar with UK Firearms Licencing procedures, but they do provide a useful analogy for comparing methods of assessment of suitability.

I also found it significant that the article mentions:

*my emphasis

This would seem to indicate a hardening of approach by the CAA and a method of ensuring that DAEs fully cooperate with the regulating authority.

YS

Alvin steele: Yes the CAA will be privvy to the AAIB findings before they go to print in March. In fact I believe the findings went there last week.

The CAA report is long overdue. This is an (airshow) industry that is in need of an overhaul.

Anybody else seen Proposed Mandatory Permit Directive 16-01? It's an intriguing document, but the big question (for me at least) is that can any of you think of anything currently flying in the UK on the G-reg that's powered by a RR Nene?

There may be a Canadair T33 T Bird out there with a G Reg,and now RNHF is run by civilians the Seahawk might be off charge and to be a G reg!The Sea Vixen seems to be a bit of both now!!I believe the poor Seahawk is still suffering from its Fuel Recuperator system,that sits above the bifurcated exhaust,so is prone to setting off Red lights.Easiest way to stop it is to simply remove it,as it only does aileron rolls so no Neg G and it has a relight button,but I gather the CAA will not accept the MOD as it was never done in service,and Hawkers no longer exist!!??Maybe Eric Heywood is still alive to make it work,otherwise it may not be seen again!!Therefore a RR Nene could be a possibility on the Display scene again!!?????????????????

Not anytime soon. It was dismantled and taken to Shawbury last week for storage...:sad:

Ahhh, the Sea Hawk might explain it. I think all the T-Birds are gone.

"pilot organisations reject caa ceo’s claims that the air display community has declined to co-operate with its post-shoreham crash changes to airshows"

And nothing directly relevant to Shoreham.

The whole thing is related to Shoreham and therefore relevant.

I find it interesting that GAPAN spin doctors seem to have redefined the CAA CEO's "resistance" as "declined to co-operate". That seems to be a large bit of escalation and politicking too.
I would rudely assume that when the CAA and GAPAN met to discuss the issues, the CAA had already made its rule changes and that GAPAN didn't agree with them...

Something akin to "When an immovable object meets a self-righteous society..."