AAIB investigation leads to manslaughter charges. UPDATE: Prosecution Withdrawn
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“its a disgrace.we pay a fortune to these people and mostly have nothing more than there word that work has been carried out”
He was a volunteer unpaid inspector
“.if someone in the position of an inspecter signs something off that he has not checked which kills two people he should be locked up”
That would depend on the circumstances under which he signed it…
He was a volunteer unpaid inspector
“.if someone in the position of an inspecter signs something off that he has not checked which kills two people he should be locked up”
That would depend on the circumstances under which he signed it…
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let off
if what people here are claiming is that the man is innocent why did he suddenly go mad when faced with a court case .if what you all say is true why didnt he go to court and prove himself innocent? he just got out of it by conviniently going mad .ive recently puchaced an aircraft myself and when looking was amazed at how many dodgy aircraft dealers /maint that there are.i once mentioned that a 12 year spar check was missing from a log book and was told ...oh he must have forgot to sign it .,no problem il get hem to stick it in the log book ...loads of people trying to sell cut and shunts or in one case aircraft that had been submerged in flood waters ...these people will charge huge fees for everything but when they get caught out and the sh!t hits the fan they dont want to know!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tonyaddison
That's quite an entrance for a new Ppruner.
I suppose it has one advantage: Any change in your approach in the future can only be an improvement.
"i must be misunderstanding something ,"
Yes, you are.
In addition to your misunderstanding concerning the use of capital letters, you are labouring under the mistaken belief that you know enough about the circumstances of both the accident and the subsequent court proceedings to make the comments you saw fit to make.
"...if someone in the position of an inspecter signs something off that he has not checked which kills two people he should be locked up ,its a disgrace."
Some people might consider it wise to ensure they know the relevant facts before making such sweeping assertions. They might, in particular, wish to be sure that the signing off had a causal connection with a subsequent crash.
You're clearly not one of them.
"we pay a fortune to these people ..........."
He was an unpaid volunteer.
"just because he gets a posh lawer who gets him off"
Neither I nor the barrister who took over from me would claim to be posh, but thank you for the compliment.
"by playing the nutter card"
Two consultant psychiatrists, one of whom was a specialist forensic psychiatrist chosen by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the man was medically unfit to cope with a trial and medically unfit to give evidence in his own defence.
If you knew the medical facts and sad medical history of the past two years or so, you might not use such an offensive term; but, given the tone of your post, I suppose you might.
"doesnt change the fact he did it .you just prevent him from being made responsible for his actions...shame on you ."
You are not in a position to assess whether he was responsible for what occurred.
Experts, who were in a position to do so, were divided about what caused the structural failure in flight and, in particular, about whether any actions or failings by the defendant had any bearing whatsoever on that failure.
"reminds me of the usa ,if you pay enough cash you get away with anything"
Yes, I've always been a little envious of the astronomic fees successful attorneys earn in the USA. I turned down a very attractive approach by a major American law firm about 25 years ago, and have often regretted it. I'd be living somewhere overlooking the Pacific, and probably be retired by now. Oh well, Chelsea has its charms and I enjoy my job.
I doubt if you allow facts to get in the way of your various prejudices but, for what it's worth, the lawyers in this case worked for Legal Aid. (It used to be referred to colloquially at the Criminal Bar as 'Lucozade', but the level of fees the government paid failed to keep pace with the increasing price of the soft drink, so that fell into disuse.)
I did some work on the case before Legal Aid was granted, and did so free of charge. Legal Aid is not retrospective so that work remained free of charge; it was my privilege to help a fellow aviator in trouble.
"shame on you!!!!!!!!!"
Some may think it's not me, nor the barrister who completed the defence work, who ought to feel ashamed.
FL
Edited after reading your second outburst:
The man wasn't selling anything. He just helped a fellow microlight enthusiast, and friend.
Your other comments suggest you've never experienced 'if only' feelings when a friend dies. The feelings of guilt are usually irrational, but no less real for that.
That's quite an entrance for a new Ppruner.
I suppose it has one advantage: Any change in your approach in the future can only be an improvement.
"i must be misunderstanding something ,"
Yes, you are.
In addition to your misunderstanding concerning the use of capital letters, you are labouring under the mistaken belief that you know enough about the circumstances of both the accident and the subsequent court proceedings to make the comments you saw fit to make.
"...if someone in the position of an inspecter signs something off that he has not checked which kills two people he should be locked up ,its a disgrace."
Some people might consider it wise to ensure they know the relevant facts before making such sweeping assertions. They might, in particular, wish to be sure that the signing off had a causal connection with a subsequent crash.
You're clearly not one of them.
"we pay a fortune to these people ..........."
He was an unpaid volunteer.
"just because he gets a posh lawer who gets him off"
Neither I nor the barrister who took over from me would claim to be posh, but thank you for the compliment.
"by playing the nutter card"
Two consultant psychiatrists, one of whom was a specialist forensic psychiatrist chosen by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the man was medically unfit to cope with a trial and medically unfit to give evidence in his own defence.
If you knew the medical facts and sad medical history of the past two years or so, you might not use such an offensive term; but, given the tone of your post, I suppose you might.
"doesnt change the fact he did it .you just prevent him from being made responsible for his actions...shame on you ."
You are not in a position to assess whether he was responsible for what occurred.
Experts, who were in a position to do so, were divided about what caused the structural failure in flight and, in particular, about whether any actions or failings by the defendant had any bearing whatsoever on that failure.
"reminds me of the usa ,if you pay enough cash you get away with anything"
Yes, I've always been a little envious of the astronomic fees successful attorneys earn in the USA. I turned down a very attractive approach by a major American law firm about 25 years ago, and have often regretted it. I'd be living somewhere overlooking the Pacific, and probably be retired by now. Oh well, Chelsea has its charms and I enjoy my job.
I doubt if you allow facts to get in the way of your various prejudices but, for what it's worth, the lawyers in this case worked for Legal Aid. (It used to be referred to colloquially at the Criminal Bar as 'Lucozade', but the level of fees the government paid failed to keep pace with the increasing price of the soft drink, so that fell into disuse.)
I did some work on the case before Legal Aid was granted, and did so free of charge. Legal Aid is not retrospective so that work remained free of charge; it was my privilege to help a fellow aviator in trouble.
"shame on you!!!!!!!!!"
Some may think it's not me, nor the barrister who completed the defence work, who ought to feel ashamed.
FL
Edited after reading your second outburst:
The man wasn't selling anything. He just helped a fellow microlight enthusiast, and friend.
Your other comments suggest you've never experienced 'if only' feelings when a friend dies. The feelings of guilt are usually irrational, but no less real for that.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 18th Mar 2008 at 20:34.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL, you took the words right out of my mouth.....!
Seriously though, if anyone else wants to jump on the tonyaddison bandwagon then may I suggest you get some facts right first before posting.
Seriously though, if anyone else wants to jump on the tonyaddison bandwagon then may I suggest you get some facts right first before posting.
I am so glad that I took the time to read this thread right through to FL's eloquent and precise summary. Had I only read the uninformed twaddle being spouted forth from someone who obviously hadn't bothered to find out the truth before passing judgement, then I am sure I would have been less restrained than this in my response.
Please take the time to carefully read the accident report, temporarily ignore the conclusion drawn, and see if the incorrectly modified components were found to fail under test at any realistic flight load. If you read the report carefully, you will find that the incorrectly modified parts would still have been strong enough to withstand the ultimate test loads required for BCAR Section S certification.
The report is, unfortunately, flawed and does not reach a conclusion that fits it's own test data. The shame of this is that two people tragically died and yet the lessons that should have been learned from their deaths, to hopefully prevent a recurrence, have not yet emerged.
VP
Please take the time to carefully read the accident report, temporarily ignore the conclusion drawn, and see if the incorrectly modified components were found to fail under test at any realistic flight load. If you read the report carefully, you will find that the incorrectly modified parts would still have been strong enough to withstand the ultimate test loads required for BCAR Section S certification.
The report is, unfortunately, flawed and does not reach a conclusion that fits it's own test data. The shame of this is that two people tragically died and yet the lessons that should have been learned from their deaths, to hopefully prevent a recurrence, have not yet emerged.
VP
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T
tonyaddison:
"i must be misunderstanding something..."
Yes Tony I am afraid you are. Try not to be quite so vitriolic without at least establishing the basic facts first.
Oh and Stephen Spence is definitely not posh - you are mistaking him for his wife
tonyaddison:
"i must be misunderstanding something..."
Yes Tony I am afraid you are. Try not to be quite so vitriolic without at least establishing the basic facts first.
Oh and Stephen Spence is definitely not posh - you are mistaking him for his wife
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
I have a couple of pals in the legal profession who always say what I think and wanted to say ,but I manage it about 10 secs too late.
Agree with all that you said,it is so easy to be jury and judge without the true facts.
A bit like cutting a piece of wood,measure twice and cut once.
But I'm still a rubbish carpenter.
Lister
I have a couple of pals in the legal profession who always say what I think and wanted to say ,but I manage it about 10 secs too late.
Agree with all that you said,it is so easy to be jury and judge without the true facts.
A bit like cutting a piece of wood,measure twice and cut once.
But I'm still a rubbish carpenter.
Lister
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does make me curious having read the report now and please excuse me if this is the wrong place to ask but what actually happened in flight to get the aircraft to exceed the design limitations? According the report even though the mod was carried out incorrectly it still would have exceeded the original design requirements.
This makes me wonder what sort of stick the aircraft must have had for the part to fail?
This makes me wonder what sort of stick the aircraft must have had for the part to fail?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"This makes me wonder what sort of stick the aircraft must have had for the part to fail?"
The aircraft still met section s so we know the flight must have exceeded the limits set out in the manual. I guess the which limits question can be answered by another look at the evidence but we will probably never know why.
The Civil case against the BMAA has the potential to put them out of business as I understand they are not insured in this case. I would guess a lot of effort will be put into looking at the real cause but it may be a long time before we find.
Rod1
The aircraft still met section s so we know the flight must have exceeded the limits set out in the manual. I guess the which limits question can be answered by another look at the evidence but we will probably never know why.
The Civil case against the BMAA has the potential to put them out of business as I understand they are not insured in this case. I would guess a lot of effort will be put into looking at the real cause but it may be a long time before we find.
Rod1
This debate is straying into areas that will come out in court, so I won't elaborate on causality in this specific case, other than to highlight that flexwing microlights, despite being extremely safe if flown within their approved flight envelope, can be very unforgiving if that envelope is exceeded. For example, they have no aerodynamic controls, and rely entirely on weight shift for control authority, which demands that they remain positively loaded at all times.
The BMAA is insured, but most probably not to the level that might be required if they lose this claim. If that happens, then they will most probably lose their assets, which includes the high value offices they own outright.
I doubt very much if the civil claim will be successful, as the BMAA now have access to the same evidence that would have shown the inspector to be not guilty.
Unfortunately for the families of the deceased, it seems that they may not have aimed their civil suits in the right direction, not that I am a great supporter of using litigation to claim compensation in adventurous recreational activities.
VP
The BMAA is insured, but most probably not to the level that might be required if they lose this claim. If that happens, then they will most probably lose their assets, which includes the high value offices they own outright.
I doubt very much if the civil claim will be successful, as the BMAA now have access to the same evidence that would have shown the inspector to be not guilty.
Unfortunately for the families of the deceased, it seems that they may not have aimed their civil suits in the right direction, not that I am a great supporter of using litigation to claim compensation in adventurous recreational activities.
VP
The BMAA is a small (around 4000 members) association, run primarily by volunteers, with just a small permanent staff of around 6 or so. It looks after microlights (ultralights) in the UK and all it's inspectors are just volunteer members. Many are not engineers, just people with microlight experience who are deemed OK to check things over.
The insurance premium is very high for such a small voluntary association. In the US, the helpers for such an association would have some limitation as to their liability thanks to the Volunteer Act, as I understand it. Here in the UK we have no such law.
In many ways, the BMAA might be better off without insurance, as then I suspect it wouldn't be such a target for the no-win, no-fee characters.
VP
The insurance premium is very high for such a small voluntary association. In the US, the helpers for such an association would have some limitation as to their liability thanks to the Volunteer Act, as I understand it. Here in the UK we have no such law.
In many ways, the BMAA might be better off without insurance, as then I suspect it wouldn't be such a target for the no-win, no-fee characters.
VP
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to your misunderstanding concerning the use of capital letters, you are labouring under the mistaken belief that you know enough about the circumstances of both the accident and the subsequent court proceedings to make the comments you saw fit to make.
Hmmm, Mr. Addison seem strangely quiet all of a sudden!
It's a sad inditement of modern society that one must hope that one has someone like FL on one's side WHEN someone decides to sue one!
Beware offering the hand of friendship or assistance for fear you might get it chopped off. What a sad world we live in.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting away from the some of the less than informed comment over all this.
After the AAIB report I asked the BMAA Chief Exec what sort of cover the Inspector might expect to defend and protect himself. I was told that he was given the names of recommended lawyers.
When I asked about using the BMAA insurance cover there was doubt that this may not be possible. Negligence by anyone or by any body at that time had not been proved. Clearly, the back watching that FL talks about.
I have not renewed my BMAA Inspectors ticket this year due to a health problem, but I'm sure glad I never relied on their insurance and support in any case that may have befallen me. Oh, and I did it all for sod all except petrol money. As for engineering background. Over 30 years from apprentice to the big jets plus years of tech college.
Many good people came to Johns rescue and devoted a lot of effort and time to raise doubts about causes, system failures etc. None of this reflects well on BMAA or the overseeing CAA.
On a slightly different tack. As good and as well meaning as the AAIB are in finding the causes (and not to apportion blame) of accidents, these freely available reports are seen by a few who will see only blame and guilt. If only life were that simple. That these reports are then used for legal cases seems to me that the less we say to the AAIB the better.
Its comforting to see that the BMAA have since appointed a Chief Inspector who has set systems and standards that hopefully will not allow this to easily happen again.
The system at the time allowed John to do what he did. It also failed to support him in his hour of need. Kind hearted peeps did that.
Its not certain that the eventual failure of the trike was as a result of any work done.
My thoughts are of course for those that lost their lives and their families.
After the AAIB report I asked the BMAA Chief Exec what sort of cover the Inspector might expect to defend and protect himself. I was told that he was given the names of recommended lawyers.
When I asked about using the BMAA insurance cover there was doubt that this may not be possible. Negligence by anyone or by any body at that time had not been proved. Clearly, the back watching that FL talks about.
I have not renewed my BMAA Inspectors ticket this year due to a health problem, but I'm sure glad I never relied on their insurance and support in any case that may have befallen me. Oh, and I did it all for sod all except petrol money. As for engineering background. Over 30 years from apprentice to the big jets plus years of tech college.
Many good people came to Johns rescue and devoted a lot of effort and time to raise doubts about causes, system failures etc. None of this reflects well on BMAA or the overseeing CAA.
On a slightly different tack. As good and as well meaning as the AAIB are in finding the causes (and not to apportion blame) of accidents, these freely available reports are seen by a few who will see only blame and guilt. If only life were that simple. That these reports are then used for legal cases seems to me that the less we say to the AAIB the better.
Its comforting to see that the BMAA have since appointed a Chief Inspector who has set systems and standards that hopefully will not allow this to easily happen again.
The system at the time allowed John to do what he did. It also failed to support him in his hour of need. Kind hearted peeps did that.
Its not certain that the eventual failure of the trike was as a result of any work done.
My thoughts are of course for those that lost their lives and their families.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stiil hear
sorry but i still dissagree with you all. you got 2 medics to confirm he was mad ....so you have had someone who is mentally unfit inspecting aircraft? who was perfectly ok untill the court case?.....this is not a personel go at anyone its clear most of you are mates with the person. i still think if an inspector signs something off ,wether hes paid or not and a fatality is caused because he didnt check it properly then i think he should take responsibilty for his actions. the whole medicly unfit to stand trial is a sham ,a get out clause that has been used by lawers to get people off for years. i feel sorry for all involved but dont see why i should be bullied into agreeing with your views.........sorry havnt been around ........i hve to work for money
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope your "work" doesn't involve reliance on spelling or grammar Mr Addison.
Have you actually bothered to read the reports? No, didn't think so.
Have you actually bothered to read the reports? No, didn't think so.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sOrY BoUt Sppellin
look i just think if this man is innocent go to court use your wonderfull not posh barrister from chesea ,whos a real good speller, to prove the point. by useing the madness exuse makes it look as though your trying to avoid court and why would you do that if your innocent. i am just looking at this without knowing anyone involved. you all seem very biased for no real reason other than your freinds which is probly not the most fair and logical way of looking at it. if it was a good freind of mine id probably be the same . but not going to court and proving theres somthing wrong with the mod or how it was done and clearing your name means the element of doubt will always be there........by the way .the way you go on about spelling make you sound like a your a bit up your own arse i could go on about the stupid pics and names you give yourselves but i didnt think the forum was about that!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Addison,
May I suggest the level of grammar shown in your posts is directly in proportion to the level of knowledge and understanding you have of the matters discussed in this thread.
Out of respect for all concerned may I also suggest you refrain from sharing your "thoughts" on this matter any further?
May I suggest the level of grammar shown in your posts is directly in proportion to the level of knowledge and understanding you have of the matters discussed in this thread.
Out of respect for all concerned may I also suggest you refrain from sharing your "thoughts" on this matter any further?