Damages for dead Yak pilot's family

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Originally Posted by xraf

Although it seems obvious, the snag is IO540 we are talking about cold war Russian technology. When you fly old aircraft especially military stuff, by default, you accept the fact that it is 'old fashioned' this design flaw may not be acceptable today but when was this designed 50/60 years ago

The Yak52 looks like a WW2 warbird, but I think it only dates back to the 1970s, so is a much newer desighn than many western light aeroplanes.

The reason it's like that (and why there's, for instance, poor cockpit ergonomics and no gear unsafe warning system, and an engine that can readily suffer hydraulic locks) is that it's a military aeroplane. It was designed to be operated in a very controlled and disiplined environment. Engineers would pre-flight the aeroplane and drain the intakes of oil, a fire crew would stand by during engine start, and flight crew would wear flying suites with zipped pockets and no need to carry a screw driver.

Those of us who operated or operate these aeroplanes in the west are well aware of all this and take the neccessary precautions, as I'm sure this crew did. However, oprating this complex aeroplane outside of its high-manpower military environment will always carry an extra slice of risk, no matter how careful the crew is.

SSD

[xraf]

Completely agree SSD

You're right, I didnt know it was from the 70's but even that is still over 30 years ago!

[LowNSlow]

My sympathies to all involved. I have seen people who I know are very careful in their preflight checks being very surprised when fabric has been opened up and pencils etc found in the rear fuselage of their aircraft.

When I replaced the carpets in my Aerobat in the early 1990's I found a two shilling piece and a lady's glove which suggests that the previous CofA's were less than rigorous.............

The 1946 Yak-18 evolved into the Yak-18PS (not to be confused with the 4 seat Yak-18T) by the mid 1960s. Production ceased in 1967. The Yak-50 was a derivative of it and took the top two places in the 1976 world championship. The Yak-52 was in turn a two seat tricycle undercarriage version of the Yak-50 which first flew in 1976.
The outwardly similar Nanchang CJ-6 was developed directly from the Yak-18.

[Mixed Up]

Those of us who operated or operate these aeroplanes in the west are well aware of all this and take the neccessary precautions, as I'm sure this crew did. However, oprating this complex aeroplane outside of its high-manpower military environment will always carry an extra slice of risk, no matter how careful the crew is.

That sums it up for me. I've flown aeros in a Yak-52 and knowingly took this extra slice of risk. Why should someone else compensate me (or my family) if it goes pear-shaped?

It's a tragic accident and I feel for all involved (except the legal sharks). I run a business and can especially feel for the maintenance company - I bet it's been a hell of a ride for them. I'm sure the money is no compensation to the pilot's family for their loss.

It does push the cost of flying up for all of us (I wonder how much the sharks got?) and for that reason alone I think we're all entitled to express our views on this subject.

[Justiciar]

There is a very sad and disrespectful tone to this thread. I know nothing about Yaks nor about this accident or the people involved. But, it seems from the report that the High Court made a finding of liability after a trial at which extensive evidence would have been heard and subject to cross examination. The AAIB report would not have been admissable unless by agreement. Undoubtedly the experts gave evidence and the judge decided. Why should the family of a man who did through negligence not recover compensation?

[QDMQDMQDM]

I am a GP. I am in a very dangerous job. More dangerous than that of most hospital consultants. I make countless, life-critical decisions on the fly all day every day and much of the night as well. Mostly, those decisions are adequate, but sometimes they are wrong. Mostly, when they are wrong I am probably not negligent and, anyway, no-one suffers. Occasionally, when they are wrong they turn out to be negligent and someone does suffer. Then I could be sued. And I actually have been. I currently pay £4,515 per year for insurance. It increases at a rate of 10-15% per year and has been doing so for many years.

Why do I say all this? My point is that the dividing line between negligence and misadventure has become very blurred in recent years and the balance shifts more and more towards a presumption of negligence. My reading of the AAIB report in this case says to me that there was enormous doubt about how that screwdriver got actually got there. My surmise -- I could be wrong -- is that this award was made against the maintenance organisation for not having a tool control procedure in place and therefore being negligent.

Well, you could go through my practice or any other practice or hospital and you could find many equivalents of 'tool control procedures' which could and should be in place, but aren't. Mostly, no-one suffers. One day, though, a series of unfortunate coincidences may mean that someone does come to grief. Then, our procedures will be put under the spotlight and someone will say, in retrospect mind you, "Well, obviously this was an accident waiting to happen. You should have seen it and are negligent for not having done so."

As a professional you can't cover all the bases. You do your best, but in the end it isn't possible. The world is too complex. If you deal in a critical field, such as aviation maintenance or medicine, eventually something must go wrong and then everyone is quick to tut tut and point the finger at you for being negligent. It's a fact of life today.

But it makes me sigh and I don't think it makes for a better society.

Sometimes, a situation can be really, outrageously gross, but mostly sh*t just happens, as it seems to have done in this case. The problem is we have lost the knack of living with it.

[S-Works]

Originally Posted by Justiciar

There is a very sad and disrespectful tone to this thread. I know nothing about Yaks nor about this accident or the people involved. But, it seems from the report that the High Court made a finding of liability after a trial at which extensive evidence would have been heard and subject to cross examination. The AAIB report would not have been admissable unless by agreement. Undoubtedly the experts gave evidence and the judge decided. Why should the family of a man who did through negligence not recover compensation?

Spoken like a true lawyer.......

[pistongone]

QDM,
That was my point pretty much, only may i say slightly more eloquently made Has anyone realised, as i have, that the aircraft last visited the maintenance facility appx 2 MONTHS before the accident?? Surely a screwdriver rattling around after all those PRE-flight checks would have been found? (Report states last visit in November 02, accident January 5th 03). Zulu Alpha, page 3 para 3 of the report suggests "most" pilots carry a means of opening the panels, screwdriver, multi-tool or swiss army knife. It doesnt actualy say the pilot had a swiss army knife. So that is another question needing an answer.

[halty]

I had the privilege to co-own a yak 52 for a couple of years and it was a fantastic and capable aircraft but i was well aware of the dangers of loose articles within its confines, much to the amusement of other aircraft owners as i would go though the pre-flight ritual of slapping hell out of the fuselage
but i was somewhat shocked to find on picking up the yak from maintenance { maintenance company involved in this incident} that a jack point adapter had been left attached to the wing {among other problems}
so although as previously mentioned, the compensation wont bring the crew back, it may focus the fact that aircraft maintenance company's need to have a strict tool control system in place and not a back street garage policy!
no tool control and aviation do not mix.
condolences to the families involved

[spekesoftly]

Originally Posted by pistongone

It doesnt actualy say the pilot had a swiss army knife. So that is another question needing an answer.

Please go back and read the AAIB report - page 6, penultimate paragraph.

[pistongone]

Well i apologise for that one, i thought i had read the report, yet i missed that Sorry chaps. So accepting that this pilot was a fastidious and superlative aviator, and i dont doubt that for a minute, it proves that tge pre-flight must be ever more vigilant when intending to do an aerobatic sortie!

[plussixpointfive]

Information is available

It is interesting to read from the various interested parties, how, with limited information & a lot of speculation, the discussion of facts have been taken out of context by some & then become distorted by heated debate which includes personal attacks on individuals resulting in incorrect conclusions.
Having attended the inquest & been allowed access to the police report & the court case. I am able to supply FACTS.
If anyone is interested in the FACTS & not the speculation I am able to supply all the correct information relating to this incident.

I would like to impart a few facts which may answer a few questions.

• The screwdriver contained the DNA of at least six people, the DNA swab was taken from only one point on the handle of the screwdriver, this was from a scratch on one surface.
• The screwdriver could not be retested because it had chemicals put on it for other tests. The only full DNA match was the pilot's, the next match was the operative who had lost the screwdriver with a possibility of about one in 50,000. Another match was with another maintenance opearative of about one in 11,000. The other matches were only partial matches with the other people tested.
• It was never proven that the pilot "handled" the screwdriver.
• Please bear in mind that the whole aircraft interior will have had the pilots DNA on it, this was an impact from 200mph, the impact blew the tail section 7 metres from the rest of the aircraft.
• The pilot always used a swiss army knife screwdriver blade to open the fuel filler covers e.tc. This was found in the velcro pocket of his flying suit.
• The pilot was not at the maintenance hangar at the time of the screwdriver going missing & had not delivered or collected the aircraft.
• The maintenance operative admitted to losing a "Snap on" stubby screwdriver from a set he had purchased from a dealer. These tools are not available to the general public.
• The owner of the maintenance company test flew the aircraft after its maintenance & signed it off. Unfortunately the paperwork could not be found.
• The pilot & his wife ran an IT consultation company. The wife did all the administration & accounting while the pilot was the technical side of things. The wife could not run the company & therefore had no income. The company would have earned approx 2.0m to the owners retirement.

In conclusion, The maintenance company left the screwdriver in the aircraft, which ultimately caused the crash. Whether or not you believe a military trained pilot would find a screwdriver in his aircraft, leave it there & then go flying is up to you.
Would you also be prepared to lose your wife or husband for £270,000.

The parents of the pilot & his brother (who was also a notable aerobatic pilot) are also both pilots & have access to this forum.

Any other information requested, will be supplied.

Thanks PSPF

[Mixed Up]

Whether or not you believe a military trained pilot would find a screwdriver in his aircraft, leave it there & then go flying is up to you.
Would you also be prepared to lose your wife or husband for £270,000.

The parents of the pilot & his brother (who was also a notable aerobatic pilot) are also both pilots & have access to this forum.

I can understand how this tragedy can be upsetting to you if the deceased were related or close friends (and I don't want to upset you or anyone else anymore), but you seem to want to express your opinion whilst telling us we cannot.

Where can we discuss this case, which affects us all, if not here?

[Justiciar]

So the judge did hear all the evidence and then made a decision. Anyone got a better way of dealing with these things?

[QDMQDMQDM]

In conclusion, The maintenance company left the screwdriver in the aircraft, which ultimately caused the crash. Whether or not you believe a military trained pilot would find a screwdriver in his aircraft, leave it there & then go flying is up to you.
Would you also be prepared to lose your wife or husband for £270,000.

I am no lawyer but this looks like pretty circumstantial evidence to me, which would be highly unlikely to hold up in a criminal, rather than a civil case.

No-one would want to lose their wife or husband for £270K, but that is completely not the issue and is a misleadingly emotive statement. The issue is one of negligence or not.

As Mixed UP says, you may be upset, but this is a legitimate subject for discussion and, as I said in my previous post, I speak as someone who has already been the subject of a negligence case and fully expect to be the subject of several more in the source of my career. We are facing an epidemic of negligence cases, often based on circumstantial evidence, and that is a worthy subject for debate.

QDM

[Justiciar]

epidemic of negligence cases

There is actually little evidence that this is the case. The "compensation culture" is something of a myth and certainly of late there has been an increasing robustness from the courts (in the < 1% which come to trial) in differentiating between true negligence and the hazards of life which everyone is expected to weather. Of course, where the individual relies upon expert skills (doctor, lawyer) the scope for complaint is much greater. But perhaps we are getting off the subject.

[smarthawke]

Thank you plussixpointfive for providing some more facts to the thread perhaps people will respect the evidence.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Justiciar,

You are speaking absolute garbage when you assert that compensation claims are not rising. As the following article shows, in 2002 negligence claims against the NHS had risen by 50% in 3 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1948135.stm

My professional subscription as a GP continues to rise at 10-15% per year. Given that the medical defence societies are mutuals (or whatever non-profit thingy they are), why are the subs increasing, if not increasing liability?

I make major decisions every day. I do the best I can, but I know absolutely that at some point I will face a claim as a result of what may quite possibly have been a simple error of judgement or may have been simply misadventure. My job is enormously risky and when you take risk, which I have to do, it sometimes goes wrong.

The one case I have been sued for so far (I was actually only a minor part of it) was settled out of court recently for a substantial sum. I am in no doubt whatsoever that neither I nor my colleagues were negligent. The barrister agreed, but said the courts were too unpredictable these days, tended to err on the side of the plaintiff, the risk was therefore too high and it had to be settled.

Sh*t happens and it isn't always anyone's fault. If you honestly think the courts are capable of consistently recognising and distinguishing that fact then you are either naive or stupid.

Sure, I don't know the precise details of this case, but I can tell you that if you come and dissect my GP surgery or any other GP surgery or hospital or clinic in the UK you can find thousands of potential equivalents to 'poor tool control procedures' which are a disaster waiting to happen. Only problem is we won't know about most of them until something awful happens and then everyone will say: "Well, it was bleedin obvious, wasn't it?"

The retrospectoscope is a wonderful thing. Ask the armed coppers who were told a suspect was coming out of a pub with a sawn-off shotgun and ended up shooting a bloke holding a chair leg covered by a blanket.

QDM

[Mixed Up]

So the judge did hear all the evidence and then made a decision.

So a shark heard a couple of bickering parties and legally settled a spat.

Isn't that the truth?

[Justiciar]

Sh*t happens and it isn't always anyone's fault. If you honestly think the courts are capable of consistently recognising and distinguishing that fact then you are either naive or stupid.

I am not sure I understand why part of the strength of your argument lies in crude insults directed at your opponent in the discussion. Do not think for one moment that you are the only one with insight or knowledge in this area nor that your perspective is the only one. I did not, as must be very obvious if you care to read my post properly, refer exclusively or mainly to the NHS. Indeed, the value and cost of claims may well be rising there. However, overall the numbers of negligence claims are not significantly rising, though the legal costs in many cases have risen since the government abolished legal aid and claimant's solicitors can recover from the opponent the success fee, which can be as high as 100% in a no win no fee case.

Sh*t happens does it? Well yes it does and sometimes it is no one's fault, but often it is. The "sh*t happens" argument is great until the sh*t happens to you, where upon it suddenly is different and you claim is then of course fully justified. I deal with civil, employment and other claims day in day out and I don't need you to tell me the weaknesses of the court system, but I don't believe that the courts are manned entirely by idiot judges as you appear to do.

What exactly is your alternative solution? Short of simply saying no one can ever sue for negligence, what are you proposing? Strangely, I am not aware of any jurisdiction which has solved this problem, including those that have gone the no fault compensation route, but perhap you know something we don't.

Part of the problem with the professions historically (including my own) is that they simply closed ranks at the first hint of a claim against a fellow professional. Standards were sometimes very poor but no one was man enough to admit it. Now, I admit that I haven't done clinical negligence for some years, but my general experience that there were very few mercenary claimants but alot of very distressed people who had suffered some fairly catastrophic injuries arising from their medical treatment. Sometimes being open would have avoided a claim but the health athorities at the time chose not to be. I suspect that things are different now.

i

f you come and dissect my GP surgery or any other GP surgery or hospital or clinic in the UK you can find thousands of potential equivalents to 'poor tool control procedures' which are a disaster waiting to happen

... and I could take you to factories, garages, building sites where there are breaches of the H & S regulations on a daily and continuing basis. So, what exactly is your point? Do we ignore them until someone falls to his death or has part of his anatomy crushed by something ? Just as my practice has reduced the claims against it (and our PI premium, by the way) by proper work control, training and file auditing why should GP surgeries not do the same? If you do indeed have a "disaster waiting to happen" in your surgery then when it does happen you bl**dy well deserve to be sued, and if your PI premiums go up as a result you have no one to blame but yourself. I am at a loss to understand why you appear to think that risk management does not apply in the medical field as it does every where else.

So a shark heard a couple of bickering parties and legally settled a spat.

Mied Up: Hopefully you will never be in the position of the widow in this case. Had you ever lost a loved one in a tragic and possibly avoidable accident you might have been less inclined to make such a flippant and disparaging comment