Tiger Moth Crash
Moderator
Thank you for your patience,
I have been provided two links to news stories:
Tiger Moth pilot Scott Hoyle not guilty of manslaughter after fatal crash (From Bournemouth Echo)
and:
Tiger Moth biplane death crash pilot Scott Hoyle not guilty - BBC News
It appears that there may be more to this case than would appear on the surface. Commenters are asked to keep this in mind when they formulate their posts. Please choose your words as though a victim might be reading them - hotel lobby rules please. I would like to think that we could all shake hands following the discussion, as respected colleagues. But, in any case, the Mods are watching!
This was a sad event, which none of us would want to experience first hand. I would like to think we can demonstrate some compassion for the victim, and the pilot, in our discussions. But, this is a worthy topic for discussion and learning, that we all be reminded of the need to do our best to imagine what could happen, and apply ourselves toward the best outcome for every flight we fly.
We will see differing points of view posted, I hope we can all agree that we can learn something no matter what our perspective, and each do a little better when we fly.
Please note, I have moved one post from earlier today, which now resides at the end of the previous page of this thread (that's just where it landed, and I can't change the order). Please consider that post too...
The discussion is open....
I have been provided two links to news stories:
Tiger Moth pilot Scott Hoyle not guilty of manslaughter after fatal crash (From Bournemouth Echo)
and:
Tiger Moth biplane death crash pilot Scott Hoyle not guilty - BBC News
It appears that there may be more to this case than would appear on the surface. Commenters are asked to keep this in mind when they formulate their posts. Please choose your words as though a victim might be reading them - hotel lobby rules please. I would like to think that we could all shake hands following the discussion, as respected colleagues. But, in any case, the Mods are watching!
This was a sad event, which none of us would want to experience first hand. I would like to think we can demonstrate some compassion for the victim, and the pilot, in our discussions. But, this is a worthy topic for discussion and learning, that we all be reminded of the need to do our best to imagine what could happen, and apply ourselves toward the best outcome for every flight we fly.
We will see differing points of view posted, I hope we can all agree that we can learn something no matter what our perspective, and each do a little better when we fly.
Please note, I have moved one post from earlier today, which now resides at the end of the previous page of this thread (that's just where it landed, and I can't change the order). Please consider that post too...
The discussion is open....
Last edited by Pilot DAR; 13th May 2015 at 00:17. Reason: To point out the moved post.
From the AAIB report
Quote
The first recorded flight was a local flight from Compton
Abbas with a duration of 31 minutes. (Figure 1 depicts
the ground track and altitude trace). Indicated on the
altitude trace are significant points in the flight in terms
of minimum altitude, descent rates and manoeuvres, as
well as the height of the ground below the aircraft. Of
note was the minimum altitude of 850 ft agl close to the
town of Blandford Forum, some tight level turns, and
a loop at about 1,200 ft agl followed by a descending
turn to the right at 2,330 ft/min, from 1,000 ft agl down
to a height of 410 ft agl, near Witchampton. This loop
was performed on a north-westerly heading, into the
prevailing wind, and was started within 20 m of the
position of the subsequent accident site. Further on,
near Chettle House, there was a second loop at about
1,600 ft agl, followed by an immediate right descending
turn of 300 ft at 2,350 ft/min. The maximum recorded
altitude during the flight was 2,150 ft amsl.
Unquote.
For me this speaks volumes about the pilots decision making and his attitude. He was IMO wholly unqualified to fly the flight profile described above. He got away with it the first time but clearly not the second time. He may have won the court case but that does not change the general level of reckless and poor judgement displayed by this pilot.
He will spend the the rest of his life knowing he killed his friend, so I guess justice will have been served, but it is so sad that this tragic accident was so completely preventable by simply following the aerobatic minimum altiude rules.
BTW there are about 100 active airshow pilots in North America who fly low level aerobatic routines. These pilots hold display authorizations that are only given after a rigorous assessment process. They are all most all professional pilots and fly aircraft with high performance margins......yet two or three kill themselves flying low level aerobatics every year.
There can be only one lesson from this accident.
1) Do not fly low level aerobatics unless you are a professional aerobatic pilot and fully understand the risks and can mitigate them.
2) NEVER EVER fly a low level aerobatic maneuver with a passenger onboard.
Quote
The first recorded flight was a local flight from Compton
Abbas with a duration of 31 minutes. (Figure 1 depicts
the ground track and altitude trace). Indicated on the
altitude trace are significant points in the flight in terms
of minimum altitude, descent rates and manoeuvres, as
well as the height of the ground below the aircraft. Of
note was the minimum altitude of 850 ft agl close to the
town of Blandford Forum, some tight level turns, and
a loop at about 1,200 ft agl followed by a descending
turn to the right at 2,330 ft/min, from 1,000 ft agl down
to a height of 410 ft agl, near Witchampton. This loop
was performed on a north-westerly heading, into the
prevailing wind, and was started within 20 m of the
position of the subsequent accident site. Further on,
near Chettle House, there was a second loop at about
1,600 ft agl, followed by an immediate right descending
turn of 300 ft at 2,350 ft/min. The maximum recorded
altitude during the flight was 2,150 ft amsl.
Unquote.
For me this speaks volumes about the pilots decision making and his attitude. He was IMO wholly unqualified to fly the flight profile described above. He got away with it the first time but clearly not the second time. He may have won the court case but that does not change the general level of reckless and poor judgement displayed by this pilot.
He will spend the the rest of his life knowing he killed his friend, so I guess justice will have been served, but it is so sad that this tragic accident was so completely preventable by simply following the aerobatic minimum altiude rules.
BTW there are about 100 active airshow pilots in North America who fly low level aerobatic routines. These pilots hold display authorizations that are only given after a rigorous assessment process. They are all most all professional pilots and fly aircraft with high performance margins......yet two or three kill themselves flying low level aerobatics every year.
There can be only one lesson from this accident.
1) Do not fly low level aerobatics unless you are a professional aerobatic pilot and fully understand the risks and can mitigate them.
2) NEVER EVER fly a low level aerobatic maneuver with a passenger onboard.
I've followed the aftermath of this crash with interest, because I like Tiger Moths, I'm an aerobatic pilot and Compton Abbas was my local airfield when I used to visit my mother near Shaftesbury.
In the poorly written Bournemouth Echo article, there is a reference to Mr. Hoyle being 6' 2" tall and weighing 18 stone. For non-Brits, that's 252 lb / 115 Kg in the back seat! It caused me to re-read the accident report, paying attention to the weight and balance.
According to the AAIB, the gross weight was 815 Kg, which was 13 Kg less than the maximum gross weight, but 13 Kg MORE than the maximum gross weight for aerobatics. The CG was 0.1" forward of the aft aerobatic limit. As an aside, the report points out that the CG location should not have had a significant effect on the spin recovery characteristics.
In the report, the following statements were made about Mr. Hoyle:
1) he had not had the aerobatic training offered by the syndicate's instructor;
2) he had not spun the Tiger;
3) he did not know the correct spin recovery technique;
4) he admitted knowing about HASELL checks and the 3000' AGL recovery floor, but didn't offer any reason as to why he performed aerobatics below this height;
5) he admitted to looping but claimed it wasn't an aerobatic maneuver;
6) on the first flight, he looped the aircraft at a height of 1200' AGL;
7) on the second flight, several witnesses (including a retired commercial pilot) saw the aircraft enter a loop (at 1400' AGL or less) at exactly the same place as on the first flight and then spin out of the top of the loop;
8) however, Mr. Hoyle claimed that he didn't perform a loop - he claimed that the rudder had jammed and in his attempt to recover, had pulled the stick back.
I was very surprised by the not-guilty verdict, given the details in the report. I would be very interested to read a transcript and see what instructions the judge gave to the jury.
I wasn't aware that this was the second trial. What happened in the first one?
I completely disagree with pulse1's post. This is exactly the sort of case that should be pursued by the CPS.
There is an interesting article pertaining to this trial, concerning whether the AAIB report was admissable in evidence:
Rogers v Hoyle: legal victory for claimants in UK aviation claims
In the poorly written Bournemouth Echo article, there is a reference to Mr. Hoyle being 6' 2" tall and weighing 18 stone. For non-Brits, that's 252 lb / 115 Kg in the back seat! It caused me to re-read the accident report, paying attention to the weight and balance.
According to the AAIB, the gross weight was 815 Kg, which was 13 Kg less than the maximum gross weight, but 13 Kg MORE than the maximum gross weight for aerobatics. The CG was 0.1" forward of the aft aerobatic limit. As an aside, the report points out that the CG location should not have had a significant effect on the spin recovery characteristics.
In the report, the following statements were made about Mr. Hoyle:
1) he had not had the aerobatic training offered by the syndicate's instructor;
2) he had not spun the Tiger;
3) he did not know the correct spin recovery technique;
4) he admitted knowing about HASELL checks and the 3000' AGL recovery floor, but didn't offer any reason as to why he performed aerobatics below this height;
5) he admitted to looping but claimed it wasn't an aerobatic maneuver;
6) on the first flight, he looped the aircraft at a height of 1200' AGL;
7) on the second flight, several witnesses (including a retired commercial pilot) saw the aircraft enter a loop (at 1400' AGL or less) at exactly the same place as on the first flight and then spin out of the top of the loop;
8) however, Mr. Hoyle claimed that he didn't perform a loop - he claimed that the rudder had jammed and in his attempt to recover, had pulled the stick back.
I was very surprised by the not-guilty verdict, given the details in the report. I would be very interested to read a transcript and see what instructions the judge gave to the jury.
I wasn't aware that this was the second trial. What happened in the first one?
I completely disagree with pulse1's post. This is exactly the sort of case that should be pursued by the CPS.
There is an interesting article pertaining to this trial, concerning whether the AAIB report was admissable in evidence:
Rogers v Hoyle: legal victory for claimants in UK aviation claims
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened in the first trial is straightforward. After the trial had been running for a week it was decided that it was necessary for some of the experts to carry out further investigation of the wreckage. This would take time and the delay could have caused difficulties for the jury. The trial judge very sensibly decided that it was better to discharge the jury and start afresh once the work had been carried out.
As for the other comments you assume that the AAIB got it right. The Jury heard from an AAIB inspector. The AAIB don't always get it right and, for example, had miscalculated the weight and balance for the aircraft believing it was overweight and out of CofG when it wasn't. I'm not going to criticise the AAIB inspector involved; he had only looked at part of the evidence and there was other conflicting evidence. In addition I don't believe that he was the one who had dealt with W and B.
India Two Four -
A number of those statements made in the AAIB report were incorrect and had not been thoroughly examined. As an example the retired airline pilot who it was claimed had seen the fatal 'loop' had clearly seen the first loop and not the fatal manoeuvre as the timings simply did not fit. She had seen the aircraft perform 3/4 of a loop before trees obscured her view without it having departed from controlled flight. This could not have been the failed loop claimed by the AAIB and the prosecution. Great reliance was placed upon her evidence as she was a "highly experienced and credible witness" however no one had ever properly investigated her evidence until she was cross-examined.
The jury also heard from a number of other highly qualified experts and rejected the suggestion that the pilot had been flying a loop. This contention was not born out by a close analysis of the available GPS evidence nor reconstruction flights carried out by a number of different experts.
The prosecution case was largely brought on the strength of a prosecution flying expert who conceded during the course of the trial that he had made a number of errors. The prosecution largely ended up abandoning him as a witness which left them with not very much of a case. Had it not been for this "expert's" original opinion this case would probably not have been brought.
As for the other comments you assume that the AAIB got it right. The Jury heard from an AAIB inspector. The AAIB don't always get it right and, for example, had miscalculated the weight and balance for the aircraft believing it was overweight and out of CofG when it wasn't. I'm not going to criticise the AAIB inspector involved; he had only looked at part of the evidence and there was other conflicting evidence. In addition I don't believe that he was the one who had dealt with W and B.
India Two Four -
A number of those statements made in the AAIB report were incorrect and had not been thoroughly examined. As an example the retired airline pilot who it was claimed had seen the fatal 'loop' had clearly seen the first loop and not the fatal manoeuvre as the timings simply did not fit. She had seen the aircraft perform 3/4 of a loop before trees obscured her view without it having departed from controlled flight. This could not have been the failed loop claimed by the AAIB and the prosecution. Great reliance was placed upon her evidence as she was a "highly experienced and credible witness" however no one had ever properly investigated her evidence until she was cross-examined.
The jury also heard from a number of other highly qualified experts and rejected the suggestion that the pilot had been flying a loop. This contention was not born out by a close analysis of the available GPS evidence nor reconstruction flights carried out by a number of different experts.
The prosecution case was largely brought on the strength of a prosecution flying expert who conceded during the course of the trial that he had made a number of errors. The prosecution largely ended up abandoning him as a witness which left them with not very much of a case. Had it not been for this "expert's" original opinion this case would probably not have been brought.
Last edited by Legalapproach; 13th May 2015 at 06:38.
Legal
Are you claiming that India 24's points 1 through 6 above, taken from the AAIB report, are not factually correct ?
Are you claiming that India 24's points 1 through 6 above, taken from the AAIB report, are not factually correct ?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are not quite as black and white as it may appear:
1) He had been taught to loop in a Chipmunk. He had been shown a loop in the Tiger and had demonstrated one himself to the instructor. He had not had further aerobatic training but did not fly other aeros - only the loop.
2) He had spin training (not on the Tiger) but had been shown a spin on the Tiger during his 5hrs + of check out.
3) He had received spin training and was checked out for spinning. His description to the AAIB was given at a time when he was still suffering the effects of life threatening injuries and was heavily medicated (the prosecution expert himself did not get it perfect when he gave the jury a description of spin recovery).
4) correct - but he gave the 3500 as "for example" referring to his spin training. When he had a loop demonstrated and then flew one himself in the Tiger it was done at about 2000' (the instructor's evidence).
5) During the interview he did state that a loop was not an aerobatic maneuver but then corrected himself.
6) I don't have the figure to hand - the height came from the GPS data and was subject to lag, averaging and margin of error. It was acknowledged that it was below 2000' but the passenger (a parachutist with military flying experience and currently training for a commercial pilots licence) gave evidence and said that he was not uncomfortable with the height.
As I say, they do not necessarily paint the full picture and the eye witness evidence was not thoroughly investigated. In fact a number of the witnesses did not describe it spinning from the top of the loop and certainly one of the eye witnesses said it pulled up and entered a spin (consistent with the pilot's account) and it did not look like a loop. In any event flight reconstruction showed that a replication of the pilot's reported control inputs cause the aircraft to flick into a spin and viewed from the ground this had the appearance (to an untrained observer) of a looping movement.
1) He had been taught to loop in a Chipmunk. He had been shown a loop in the Tiger and had demonstrated one himself to the instructor. He had not had further aerobatic training but did not fly other aeros - only the loop.
2) He had spin training (not on the Tiger) but had been shown a spin on the Tiger during his 5hrs + of check out.
3) He had received spin training and was checked out for spinning. His description to the AAIB was given at a time when he was still suffering the effects of life threatening injuries and was heavily medicated (the prosecution expert himself did not get it perfect when he gave the jury a description of spin recovery).
4) correct - but he gave the 3500 as "for example" referring to his spin training. When he had a loop demonstrated and then flew one himself in the Tiger it was done at about 2000' (the instructor's evidence).
5) During the interview he did state that a loop was not an aerobatic maneuver but then corrected himself.
6) I don't have the figure to hand - the height came from the GPS data and was subject to lag, averaging and margin of error. It was acknowledged that it was below 2000' but the passenger (a parachutist with military flying experience and currently training for a commercial pilots licence) gave evidence and said that he was not uncomfortable with the height.
As I say, they do not necessarily paint the full picture and the eye witness evidence was not thoroughly investigated. In fact a number of the witnesses did not describe it spinning from the top of the loop and certainly one of the eye witnesses said it pulled up and entered a spin (consistent with the pilot's account) and it did not look like a loop. In any event flight reconstruction showed that a replication of the pilot's reported control inputs cause the aircraft to flick into a spin and viewed from the ground this had the appearance (to an untrained observer) of a looping movement.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 60
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the weight of Mr Hoyle as mentioned above, you seem to have mixed up Hoyle and Rogers, the passenger was 18 stone 7lbs, not the pilot, the aircraft was agreed to be within limits with both the prosecution expert and the AAIB having erred in their calculations.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For background only...
Courts of Law and accident investigations have very different functions and entirely different standards of allowable evidence. It is entirely normal, and has happened thousands of times, that an outcome in a Court of Law will be different to any sort of non-judicial investigation.
In aviation there is a very well known UK military case from about a decade or more ago, when a RAF pilot killed an individual through a flagrant act of flying indiscipline and clear breach of regulations.
He got off scot-free in a civilian law court and was then immune from military process under double jeopardy laws.
It was ever thus.
Ironically (and painfully for all) once a law case has failed it often proves difficult to apply non-judicial findings, because the regulatory body is then open to legal action itself.
Not saying any of that applies here....just saying that is how the world works.
Courts of Law and accident investigations have very different functions and entirely different standards of allowable evidence. It is entirely normal, and has happened thousands of times, that an outcome in a Court of Law will be different to any sort of non-judicial investigation.
In aviation there is a very well known UK military case from about a decade or more ago, when a RAF pilot killed an individual through a flagrant act of flying indiscipline and clear breach of regulations.
He got off scot-free in a civilian law court and was then immune from military process under double jeopardy laws.
It was ever thus.
Ironically (and painfully for all) once a law case has failed it often proves difficult to apply non-judicial findings, because the regulatory body is then open to legal action itself.
Not saying any of that applies here....just saying that is how the world works.
India Four Two,
Having read Legalapproach's post I wonder if your "complete" disagreement with my view might be a little less complete.
It seems to me that the CPS and even the CAA have a poor track record for prosecuting pilots. A lot of this has been thanks to the efforts of Flying Lawyer before he became a judge. As far as I recall, most of the cases I know about have revealed a readiness by the CPS or CAA to prosecute on unreliable evidence, causing immense distress to the unfortunate pilots. In at least two of these cases, the unreliable evidence came from professional pilots, as in this case.
Until I learned more of the real situation, now revealed by Legalapproach, I too assumed that this pilot had been stupid and should have been prosecuted. Although he may have demonstrated poor airmanship, I do not now believe that he should have been prosecuted.
Having read Legalapproach's post I wonder if your "complete" disagreement with my view might be a little less complete.
It seems to me that the CPS and even the CAA have a poor track record for prosecuting pilots. A lot of this has been thanks to the efforts of Flying Lawyer before he became a judge. As far as I recall, most of the cases I know about have revealed a readiness by the CPS or CAA to prosecute on unreliable evidence, causing immense distress to the unfortunate pilots. In at least two of these cases, the unreliable evidence came from professional pilots, as in this case.
Until I learned more of the real situation, now revealed by Legalapproach, I too assumed that this pilot had been stupid and should have been prosecuted. Although he may have demonstrated poor airmanship, I do not now believe that he should have been prosecuted.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone reading the AAIB Report alone on this unfortunate accident is left with a clear view on fault on the part of the pilot. This is a potentially dangerous and in the main, uncharacteristic starting point for such reports in any event.
The point is materially accelerated further in the wrong direction if you accept that the AAIB Report is materially wrong in a number of areas.
The evidence at the Trial was clear.
The pilot (and only actual available witness of what happened in the aircraft) had from the very outset said that he sustained a left rudder jam following a left turn, which he could not free.
As the aircraft attempted to depart to the left, he held it off with, (the only control available to him) - opposite stick. It did not solve the problem for long and as he relaxed the controls to see if that would free the jam the aircraft attempted to aggressively depart to the left; he snatched the stick back and the aircraft flicked over and into a violent left spin, which he could not recover from.
A word to the wise, the pilot is clear that he was not attempting any form of aerobatics, loop or otherwise as part of the accident sequence and/or the subject flight. The conclusion of 'loop' was seemingly speculative (and a premature conclusion) based upon having flown loops in the subject area on a previous flight, (and the error by those investigating with for example, ground witnesses) - see Legalapproach. The investigators investigation was admitted as limited.
The actual evidence at Trial was clear to all. There had been detailed investigation of the evidence by the defence team and experts. This included the GPS, wreckage, accident scene photographs, witnesses and expert analyses - including flight physics / mathematical modelling and flight testing. Independently but complimentary to each other, the only version of events that remained possible was as the pilot had described it from the outset, (including to the paramedic as he was being cut out from the aircraft with serious injuries).
Accordingly, there are a number of questions (not specific to this pilot and not confined to this accident) that need to be asked…
The point is materially accelerated further in the wrong direction if you accept that the AAIB Report is materially wrong in a number of areas.
The evidence at the Trial was clear.
The pilot (and only actual available witness of what happened in the aircraft) had from the very outset said that he sustained a left rudder jam following a left turn, which he could not free.
As the aircraft attempted to depart to the left, he held it off with, (the only control available to him) - opposite stick. It did not solve the problem for long and as he relaxed the controls to see if that would free the jam the aircraft attempted to aggressively depart to the left; he snatched the stick back and the aircraft flicked over and into a violent left spin, which he could not recover from.
A word to the wise, the pilot is clear that he was not attempting any form of aerobatics, loop or otherwise as part of the accident sequence and/or the subject flight. The conclusion of 'loop' was seemingly speculative (and a premature conclusion) based upon having flown loops in the subject area on a previous flight, (and the error by those investigating with for example, ground witnesses) - see Legalapproach. The investigators investigation was admitted as limited.
The actual evidence at Trial was clear to all. There had been detailed investigation of the evidence by the defence team and experts. This included the GPS, wreckage, accident scene photographs, witnesses and expert analyses - including flight physics / mathematical modelling and flight testing. Independently but complimentary to each other, the only version of events that remained possible was as the pilot had described it from the outset, (including to the paramedic as he was being cut out from the aircraft with serious injuries).
Accordingly, there are a number of questions (not specific to this pilot and not confined to this accident) that need to be asked…
Last edited by flying-saint; 13th May 2015 at 14:07.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^
In many countries (especially the UK) the outcome of a court case has just as much to do with the quality of legal representation that can be afforded as it is a matter of evidence.
Sorry for the cynical view, but just providing balance here. The aforementioned RAF jock did not "get off" because he did not carry out the act, or because the evidence was insufficient.
He got off because his costly brief found a legal loophole and applied it.
Again...it was ever thus.
This pilots actions would best be assessed above all else by his peers, given all the available clues.
What a Court of Law says about his flying ability and decision-making is a pretty much irrelevant outwith the legal context.
In many countries (especially the UK) the outcome of a court case has just as much to do with the quality of legal representation that can be afforded as it is a matter of evidence.
Sorry for the cynical view, but just providing balance here. The aforementioned RAF jock did not "get off" because he did not carry out the act, or because the evidence was insufficient.
He got off because his costly brief found a legal loophole and applied it.
Again...it was ever thus.
This pilots actions would best be assessed above all else by his peers, given all the available clues.
What a Court of Law says about his flying ability and decision-making is a pretty much irrelevant outwith the legal context.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legalapproach, very well done Sir! 
...and you were up against a "costly brief" of a QC no less. 
IMHO the case should have never gone ahead. It was an unintentional accident.
I now hope that all the affected parties can now move on and try not to remiss too much over that dreadful day.
...and you were up against a "costly brief" of a QC no less. IMHO the case should have never gone ahead. It was an unintentional accident.
I now hope that all the affected parties can now move on and try not to remiss too much over that dreadful day.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^
Please read before commenting...
What I said...
I don't like using bold, capitals etc in a forum, but really sometimes it cannot be avoided....
FOR CONTEXT ONLY!
I make no judgement on this case which I know nothing about. My point was purely to provide a very general point.
Being found not guilty in a Court of Law does not mean a pilot has not committed an error (large or small) and vice versa.
Being found in error in a Board of Enquiry does not mean a pilot has committed a criminal act and vice versa.
If that is not clear enough...anyway, I've (hopefully made my point) I'm done.
Please read before commenting...
What I said...
For background only...
FOR CONTEXT ONLY!
I make no judgement on this case which I know nothing about. My point was purely to provide a very general point.
Being found not guilty in a Court of Law does not mean a pilot has not committed an error (large or small) and vice versa.
Being found in error in a Board of Enquiry does not mean a pilot has committed a criminal act and vice versa.
If that is not clear enough...anyway, I've (hopefully made my point) I'm done.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prior to this comment, I have read the preceding posts, and the most part of the AAIB report again. I do not have access to the legal arguments. The facts are something else again....
What I think I see is that different professions involved in the aftermath of this event applied their best effort. The accident investigators recreated with their best effort, a detailed summary of the circumstances, with supporting evidence. Then, the legal system applied their best effort to call it all into question. I suppose that a non aviation familiar court were persuaded by the legal arguments.
Something reasonably clear was made muddy, and then found to not be transparent any more. In my personal opinion this does not equate to innocence, just muddy.
Could that pilot tell himself that that flight was conducted by him so as to create the most safe flying experience for his passenger? Were that pilot's reported aerobatics on the previous flight conducted with due regard for safety and regulatory compliance (entry altitude & his competence)? Did he intend that his second flight be more safe than his first? Do we aviation people disbelieve the product of the AAIB investigation?
What I think I see is that different professions involved in the aftermath of this event applied their best effort. The accident investigators recreated with their best effort, a detailed summary of the circumstances, with supporting evidence. Then, the legal system applied their best effort to call it all into question. I suppose that a non aviation familiar court were persuaded by the legal arguments.
Something reasonably clear was made muddy, and then found to not be transparent any more. In my personal opinion this does not equate to innocence, just muddy.
Could that pilot tell himself that that flight was conducted by him so as to create the most safe flying experience for his passenger? Were that pilot's reported aerobatics on the previous flight conducted with due regard for safety and regulatory compliance (entry altitude & his competence)? Did he intend that his second flight be more safe than his first? Do we aviation people disbelieve the product of the AAIB investigation?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step turn - did you not read what Legal approach said?
I suggest something very muddy was made clear. From the transparency of that the Judge summed up the evidence.....from that the jury came back and found the pilot not guilty. End of.
I suggest something very muddy was made clear. From the transparency of that the Judge summed up the evidence.....from that the jury came back and found the pilot not guilty. End of.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my original post, #52, I ended by stating transparency was key to this event.
I concur. What I am now struggling with is why a number on here wish the pilot prosecuted....
From the transparency of that the Judge summed up the evidence.....from that the jury came back and found the pilot not guilty. End of.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right Jetblu. Something muddy was made clear. Everything that could was thrown at the pilot (including evidence from the AAIB). It was then the consideration of the full evidence (factual and expert) that trumped the defective allegations and unambiguously resulted in the verdict - it was not the 'legal arguments' Step Turn. The AAIB do not always get it right...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did you not read what Legal approach said?
I suggest something very muddy was made clear.
I suggest something very muddy was made clear.
I read a lot of conflict between reported court "information", and the AAIB report. Honestly, I don't find accident investigation authority reports to be glaringly wrong in my experience. Small errors, or interpretations, yes, but not huge errors.
I have no information about this event, other than that which I have read from PPRuNe. My interest in the event goes no deeper than a wish that pilots learn from accidents, so they are not repeated.
I read conflicts - even from the pilot himself, as to a loop being intended or not during the accident flight. I simply do not accept that a pilot intended to fly two separate flights with two passengers, looped the first, and had an accident doing what some people report as being a loop, in the same place, while asserting that he was not attempting a loop during the second flight. It does not ring true with me....
By all accounts, the pilot's experience to loop any aircraft was very limited (and by Canadian regulations would not even be close to meeting the minimums for experience - but I know it was the UK, perhaps it's different there). By all accounts, whatever incipient aerobatic maneuvering occurred, it was not entered at a minimum required entry altitude for aerobatics.
The AAIB report is clear, the proceedings seem to make it un clear/call it into question, without in my mind, presenting credible alternative information.
If I were the custodian of the aircraft, and "dealing with" the aftermath of this accident, the information presented thus far, outside the AAIB report, would be inadequate for my to absolve the pilot of responsibility. I am open to there being more that I do not know, which might - but I have not seen it yet....
I continue to feel that the pilot bears responsibility for at least poor airmanship, though more likely for flying an aircraft outside the specified requirements for aerobatics.
Last edited by 9 lives; 13th May 2015 at 16:51.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step turn, you appear to be falling into the very trap others before you have - equating the circumstantial with the actual. Without having sat through the evidence, do you not think it inappropriate to be conclusive and make comments such as:-
What do you recommend as better airmanship for a stuck left rudder, which has resulted in a violent fully developed spin (other than what the pilot did, which was to look himself and ask the passenger whether he could see the cause / obstruction)?
I continue to feel that the pilot bears responsibility for at least poor airmanship, though more likely for flying an aircraft outside the specified requirements for aerobatics.