AAIB investigation leads to manslaughter charges. UPDATE: Prosecution Withdrawn
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tonyaddison. You clearly have no idea about mental illness, or indeed the facts behind this case. I have studied mental illness a lot recently as I have been exploring old asylums and have read a lot doing research.
Mental illness can be triggered by any stressfull event that has happened in ones life. A death or a spouse leaving and so on. I imagine the stress of the court case didn't help and possibly the trigger here for his illness.
I will let you respond to this just the once before I ban you for being an idiot.
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 .
I will let you respond to this just the once before I ban you for being an idiot.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brl
i see where your coming from . to people close to all this what ive said may have seemed harsh and for this im sorry.it was a terrible accident for all involved .the only piont i was trying to make was that even though someone may not feel well enought at present to attend a court hearing for good reasons .in the future would it not be in the interest of all to ensure that it cant happen again and to clear any doubts about where responsibilty lies . i am suprised at the amount of aggresive and insulting replys you seem to ignor in this thread . i might not agree with you on a point but i wouldnt call you an idiot or start having a go beause you made a spelling mistake.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A disaster all round
I can't help feeling that this is a case that has no winners what so ever.
A volunteer inspector makes an error that might or might not have been the cause of this tragic accident, what is clear is that the inspector did not act negligently, he may have made a mistake but this far from negligence.
The guy was just helping out a fellow flyer not trying to make a fast buck as some above might want to imply. The cost to the inspector of this accident has been months of distress over his part in this accident and the pressure has no doubt cost him his health.
As a LAA inspector this whole thing sends shivers down my back knowing that for just one mistake I could have been the subject of this thread.
As for tonyaddison he is just to stupid or immature to understand the issues in this tragic case.
A volunteer inspector makes an error that might or might not have been the cause of this tragic accident, what is clear is that the inspector did not act negligently, he may have made a mistake but this far from negligence.
The guy was just helping out a fellow flyer not trying to make a fast buck as some above might want to imply. The cost to the inspector of this accident has been months of distress over his part in this accident and the pressure has no doubt cost him his health.
As a LAA inspector this whole thing sends shivers down my back knowing that for just one mistake I could have been the subject of this thread.
As for tonyaddison he is just to stupid or immature to understand the issues in this tragic case.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An academic question:
I wonder what the law is like in this area (maintenance) regarding negligence.
In some bits of aviation, you are not liable unless negligence is proven.
For example, from vague memory, the owner/operator of an aircraft has strict liability to an injured/damaged party on the ground, and the pilot is liable jointly. But passengers (and I am not talking about commercial paying passengers which is a different thing) cannot get compensation unless negligence is proven. This apparently is why, in GA, any legal action by injured passengers (or their estates) tends to focus on proving allegations of negligence first of all.
I wonder what the law is like in this area (maintenance) regarding negligence.
In some bits of aviation, you are not liable unless negligence is proven.
For example, from vague memory, the owner/operator of an aircraft has strict liability to an injured/damaged party on the ground, and the pilot is liable jointly. But passengers (and I am not talking about commercial paying passengers which is a different thing) cannot get compensation unless negligence is proven. This apparently is why, in GA, any legal action by injured passengers (or their estates) tends to focus on proving allegations of negligence first of all.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a complete outsider with no view other than what I have read in the reports it strikes me that yes an error occurred on the part of the inspector as far as the inspection was concerned. I have a deep sympathy for his position and understand that this type of stress would be enough to tip any normal person over the edge. Calling the 'madness card' to my mind is crass and shows a lack of understanding on the part of those making the accusation.
But back to the subject as a third party reading the AIB material it strikes me that the modification and the subsequent inspection still exceed the original certification tolerances so it comes to my mind what exactly was the pilot doing with the aircraft to exceed the design tolerances to such a degree to cause the aircraft to fail in flight? Showboating to the passenger? Was the passenger given control and the aircraft end up in a situation where this relatively low hours instructor could not recover?
As an outsider I have more questions than answers. Which I guess if I was called to jury service would be the questions I would ask.
But back to the subject as a third party reading the AIB material it strikes me that the modification and the subsequent inspection still exceed the original certification tolerances so it comes to my mind what exactly was the pilot doing with the aircraft to exceed the design tolerances to such a degree to cause the aircraft to fail in flight? Showboating to the passenger? Was the passenger given control and the aircraft end up in a situation where this relatively low hours instructor could not recover?
As an outsider I have more questions than answers. Which I guess if I was called to jury service would be the questions I would ask.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but not going to court and proving theres somthing wrong with the mod or how it was done and clearing your name
Innocent until found Guilty
This person is 100% innocent of all charges because they have not admitted to nor been found Guilty by a Court of them.
Some think that this was a case of the law being used and others will consider it Justice. No matter what the view, the person is innocent.
If you are affected by the case why not take a civil action and ontain your "Justice" or perhaps simply get the law?
-----------
If the defence costs have been awarded and provided the court pays all the costs, to what new good use will the monies collected to support "the cause" be put?
Regards,
DFC
I think it best to ignore this Addison chap, as I suspect that he is simply a troll, or someone connected with this case in some way who has decided to be a little unpleasant to aviators as a way of retaliating. If he is a relative or friend of one of the deceased, then perhaps his anger is understandable, even if it is misdirected.
The issue of causality will, I am sure, come out in the civil hearing. Much can be gleaned from very careful reading of the accident report, but there is a great deal more evidence subsequently gathered and examined that sheds more light on what most probably happened. It's worth noting that flexwing microlights have some very different handling quirks than those found when a conventional aircraft is pushed to the corners of it's envelope. The AAIB were, and to some extent still are, lacking in detailed expertise in flexwing handling and performance, so relied on support from the manufacturer, which was hardly impartial in these particular circumstances.
If the full defence costs are paid, then the trustees of the fund that contributed over Ł6,000 to the initial Ł20,000 or so of costs the inspector incurred before legal aid was awarded will have to make the difficult decision as to what best to do with it. I am sure that this will be done with respect for the wishes of those who donated, the wishes of the inspector and consideration for the deceased and their families. Whatever is decided will be made public in due course, I am sure.
VP
The issue of causality will, I am sure, come out in the civil hearing. Much can be gleaned from very careful reading of the accident report, but there is a great deal more evidence subsequently gathered and examined that sheds more light on what most probably happened. It's worth noting that flexwing microlights have some very different handling quirks than those found when a conventional aircraft is pushed to the corners of it's envelope. The AAIB were, and to some extent still are, lacking in detailed expertise in flexwing handling and performance, so relied on support from the manufacturer, which was hardly impartial in these particular circumstances.
If the full defence costs are paid, then the trustees of the fund that contributed over Ł6,000 to the initial Ł20,000 or so of costs the inspector incurred before legal aid was awarded will have to make the difficult decision as to what best to do with it. I am sure that this will be done with respect for the wishes of those who donated, the wishes of the inspector and consideration for the deceased and their families. Whatever is decided will be made public in due course, I am sure.
VP
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Essex
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540:
It's my (rough) understanding that for a private, non-paying passenger on a GA flight with a friend would be in a similar position compensation-wise to a car passenger, in the event of an accident.
...[Duff info deleted]...
This apparently is why, in GA, any legal action by injured passengers (or their estates) tends to focus on proving allegations of negligence first of all.
...[Duff info deleted]...
Last edited by Redbird72; 22nd Mar 2008 at 19:39.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redbird72
That introduction in your response to IO540 is correct.
However, everything you say in your next two paragraphs is wrong.
(You also appear to misunderstand the legal position of passengers in road traffic accidents.)
IO540
"Aviation law is different, Redbird."
Not in the context of this thread.
"But we need a lawyer here
"
I'm sure one will see this and explain the relevant law.
"For some reason, the lawyers who post here virtually never express a view on anything legal."
Is that fair?
eg I did so regularly, for many years, in various PPRuNe forums - sometimes concerning aviation law, sometimes other areas of law.
I am no longer as free as I used to be to express views on legal matters and, for that reason, I now either don't post on 'legal' threads (frustrating when completely inaccurate assertions remain uncorrected) or restrict myself to comments of a general nature/statements of facts already in the public domain. I go as far as I properly can, but no further.
As far as I know, none of the other lawyers who post on PPRuNe have my constraints, so no doubt one (or more) of them will answer your question in due course.
Of course, if a lawyer is/was involved in a case being discussed, there are limits upon what he/she can say about that particular case, but posts explaining the relevant law are not a problem.
FWIW, I doubt if any lawyer who responds will disagree with your understanding of the law, as set out in your previous post.
DFC
If the defence costs have been awarded and provided the court pays all the costs, to what new good use will the monies collected to support "the cause" be put?
I don't know the answer to your question but, just for the record -
I did not take a penny from the fund - I declined to do so. All my work on the case was free of charge.
The client subsequently obtained Legal Aid so neither I nor the barrister who took over from me when I left the Bar received anything from the fund.
FL
It's my (rough) understanding that for a private, non-paying passenger on a GA flight with a friend would be in a similar position compensation-wise to a car passenger, in the event of an accident.
However, everything you say in your next two paragraphs is wrong.
(You also appear to misunderstand the legal position of passengers in road traffic accidents.)
IO540
"Aviation law is different, Redbird."
Not in the context of this thread.
"But we need a lawyer here
"I'm sure one will see this and explain the relevant law.
"For some reason, the lawyers who post here virtually never express a view on anything legal."
Is that fair?
eg I did so regularly, for many years, in various PPRuNe forums - sometimes concerning aviation law, sometimes other areas of law.
I am no longer as free as I used to be to express views on legal matters and, for that reason, I now either don't post on 'legal' threads (frustrating when completely inaccurate assertions remain uncorrected) or restrict myself to comments of a general nature/statements of facts already in the public domain. I go as far as I properly can, but no further.
As far as I know, none of the other lawyers who post on PPRuNe have my constraints, so no doubt one (or more) of them will answer your question in due course.
Of course, if a lawyer is/was involved in a case being discussed, there are limits upon what he/she can say about that particular case, but posts explaining the relevant law are not a problem.
FWIW, I doubt if any lawyer who responds will disagree with your understanding of the law, as set out in your previous post.
DFC
If the defence costs have been awarded and provided the court pays all the costs, to what new good use will the monies collected to support "the cause" be put?
I don't know the answer to your question but, just for the record -
I did not take a penny from the fund - I declined to do so. All my work on the case was free of charge.
The client subsequently obtained Legal Aid so neither I nor the barrister who took over from me when I left the Bar received anything from the fund.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 22nd Mar 2008 at 11:29.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“the BMAA involvement in the technical aspects of the investigation was greater than you are suggesting.”
By “BMAA involvement” do you mean head office or a person who is a member?
Rod1
By “BMAA involvement” do you mean head office or a person who is a member?
Rod1
The AAIB appear not to have responded to the very last criminal defence submission, as far as I am aware, although this doesn't particularly surprise me. The head of the AAIB has said that he would accept, and consider reviewing, any additional information that has a bearing on the report conclusion, so there is a possibility that an amendment may be made at some future date. This information will not now, I believe, be made available until the civil hearing. There's no legal constraint that requires this information to remain confidential, just the need to ensure that the civil defence isn't jeopardised.
Overall, I have the distinct feeling that the AAIB senior management feel very uncomfortable about their organisation being drawn in to the detail of legal cases, most probably because this inevitably involves some form of selective application of their findings. I also believe that the AAIB regret the way that this particular report managed to cause so much upset, judging from the very positive efforts that they have made recently to gain a better understanding of microlights.
VP
Overall, I have the distinct feeling that the AAIB senior management feel very uncomfortable about their organisation being drawn in to the detail of legal cases, most probably because this inevitably involves some form of selective application of their findings. I also believe that the AAIB regret the way that this particular report managed to cause so much upset, judging from the very positive efforts that they have made recently to gain a better understanding of microlights.
VP
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know why marine reports from the MAIB have wording that says:
This report is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 13(9) of the Merchant
Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005, shall be inadmissible in any
judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes is to attribute or apportion liability or
blame.
Why do we not have the same for Aviation (or rail) reports?
This report is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 13(9) of the Merchant
Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005, shall be inadmissible in any
judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes is to attribute or apportion liability or
blame.
Why do we not have the same for Aviation (or rail) reports?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's part of Regulation 13(9), but the subsection actually ends with: ".......... unless a Court or tribunal, having regard to the factors mentioned in regulation 12(5)(b) or (c), determines otherwise."
As an aviator, I have misgivings about AAIB reports being used in litigation - whether criminal or civil.
I resist the temptation to comment upon the role of the AAIB in the prosecution being discussed except to say, again as an aviator, that I consider it was an extremely worrying step in the wrong direction by a body for which, for decades, I have had enormous respect.
As an aviator, I have misgivings about AAIB reports being used in litigation - whether criminal or civil.
I resist the temptation to comment upon the role of the AAIB in the prosecution being discussed except to say, again as an aviator, that I consider it was an extremely worrying step in the wrong direction by a body for which, for decades, I have had enormous respect.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Back in the Black Country
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was never the aaib's decision or wish that anyone was prosecuted. The aaib in its report merely stated the sequence of events that it believed caused the accident. That is its role.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
Under the terms of the Civil Aviation Act, compensation is payable for damage caused to any property or person on the ground arising as a result of anything falling from aircraft being in flight, taking off or landing, without proof of negligence. The liability is on the owner of the aircraft unless it has been bona fide demised, let out or hired for a period exceeding 14 days and the pilot, aircraft commander, navigator or operating crew are not in the employ of the aircraft owner, in which case the liability is on the hirer etc.
Where a legal liability is created in some person other than the owner to pay damages in respect of the said loss or damage, the owner shall be entitled to be indemnified by that other person against any claim in respect of the said loss or damage. Therefore if there is negligence on the part of the crew or some other person that caused the damage the aircraft owner would be able to seek an indemnity in respect of the liability.
This is a statutory exception to the normal law (known as Tort – an actionable wrong not arising out of a breach of contract or a crime) dealing with loss and damage such as personal injury.
As far as an aircraft occupant is concerned, he or she is not covered by the terms of the Civil Aviation Act and therefore can only recover damages for loss or injury by proving negligence. This is the same as is the position of a passenger in a motorcar. Negligence has been defined as a failure to use reasonable care; the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.
In order to successfully claim damages, an injured passenger would have to prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. In civil proceedings proof of any of this would be on the balance of probabilities.
As an aside, in criminal proceedings such as gross negligence manslaughter, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, that the defendant was in breach of that duty, that the breach caused the death and if so whether it should be characterised as gross negligence, in other words that the defendant’s conduct was not merely negligent but so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission. All of this would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In your question you ask what the position is regarding maintenance and negligence. The simple answer is that either negligence would have to be proved or breach of contract i.e. a breach of an express or implied contractual term relating to the standard of work or the provision of materials etc.
I wonder what the law is like in this area (maintenance) regarding negligence.
Where a legal liability is created in some person other than the owner to pay damages in respect of the said loss or damage, the owner shall be entitled to be indemnified by that other person against any claim in respect of the said loss or damage. Therefore if there is negligence on the part of the crew or some other person that caused the damage the aircraft owner would be able to seek an indemnity in respect of the liability.
This is a statutory exception to the normal law (known as Tort – an actionable wrong not arising out of a breach of contract or a crime) dealing with loss and damage such as personal injury.
As far as an aircraft occupant is concerned, he or she is not covered by the terms of the Civil Aviation Act and therefore can only recover damages for loss or injury by proving negligence. This is the same as is the position of a passenger in a motorcar. Negligence has been defined as a failure to use reasonable care; the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances.
In order to successfully claim damages, an injured passenger would have to prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. In civil proceedings proof of any of this would be on the balance of probabilities.
As an aside, in criminal proceedings such as gross negligence manslaughter, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, that the defendant was in breach of that duty, that the breach caused the death and if so whether it should be characterised as gross negligence, in other words that the defendant’s conduct was not merely negligent but so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission. All of this would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In your question you ask what the position is regarding maintenance and negligence. The simple answer is that either negligence would have to be proved or breach of contract i.e. a breach of an express or implied contractual term relating to the standard of work or the provision of materials etc.
I've also some significant experience investigating microlight accidents, and prior to issue of AAIB's report had considerable sight of the evidence in this accident, as well as knowing the majority of the main "players" in this unhappy drama.
It was always my view that this prosecution should never have taken place - this is not a view about guilt or innocence (frankly, I don't want to discuss that at-all), more that the skill and energy spent either pursuing or defending this prosecution might well have saved lives if spent on genuine safety investigation and promotion.
Since the fatal accident to G-STYX, there have been three similar but so far unexplained fatal accidents to Airborne Edge 912/Streak III aircraft (two in Australia and one in South Africa), what appears to be a tumble fatality in the UK in a Quantum - still to be reported by AAIB, and the American NTSB are also conducting an investigation into several similar-ish flexwing fatal accidents. If we can eliminate these accidents then we'll probably get an outcome making flexwings safer per flying hour than certified GA. If all of the effort spent either accusing or defending John Whelan was spent elsewhere there might be people dead now who'd be alive - and further accidents WILL HAPPEN if we don't investigate and then publish/train-to-avoid what's causing these accidents.
Frankly the only good to come out of this investigation and prosecution to date has been the very overdue review of the BMAA inspectors system - but it's not enough and most of the energy directly related to the G-STYX fatal has been spent on blame attribution, not future accident prevention.
G
It was always my view that this prosecution should never have taken place - this is not a view about guilt or innocence (frankly, I don't want to discuss that at-all), more that the skill and energy spent either pursuing or defending this prosecution might well have saved lives if spent on genuine safety investigation and promotion.
Since the fatal accident to G-STYX, there have been three similar but so far unexplained fatal accidents to Airborne Edge 912/Streak III aircraft (two in Australia and one in South Africa), what appears to be a tumble fatality in the UK in a Quantum - still to be reported by AAIB, and the American NTSB are also conducting an investigation into several similar-ish flexwing fatal accidents. If we can eliminate these accidents then we'll probably get an outcome making flexwings safer per flying hour than certified GA. If all of the effort spent either accusing or defending John Whelan was spent elsewhere there might be people dead now who'd be alive - and further accidents WILL HAPPEN if we don't investigate and then publish/train-to-avoid what's causing these accidents.
Frankly the only good to come out of this investigation and prosecution to date has been the very overdue review of the BMAA inspectors system - but it's not enough and most of the energy directly related to the G-STYX fatal has been spent on blame attribution, not future accident prevention.
G