AAIB investigation leads to manslaughter charges. UPDATE: Prosecution Withdrawn
 

Have just seen a news flash on Sky about a crash in kent. Two killed? Anyone got any further info?

Another Bad Day

From Sky news

TWO KILLED IN LIGHT AIRCRAFT CRASH


Two people have died after their light aircraft crashed on the top of cliffs on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent, the fire service has said.

Emergency services were called to Warden Point after members of the public reported seeing the plane disintegrate in the air.


A spokesman for Thames Coastguard said they had received a number of 999 calls from local residents and passers-by who witnessed the crash in a field by the cliff-edge just before 2pm.

"It seems to have disintegrated in the air. The occupants appear to have come down with the plane," he added.

Kent Fire Service said two people in the plane had been confirmed dead.

"Our officers are at the scene. There does not appear to be any fire," the spokeswoman added.

From BBC NEWS ...

"Two die in light aircraft crash"

Two men have died when their light aircraft crashed on the top of cliffs on the Isle of Sheppey, Kent.
Emergency teams said the accident happened at Warden Point, just before 1400 BST on Saturday.

Members of the public told Thames Coastguard they saw the plane disintegrate in the air - coastguards said the men came down with the plane.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service said they attended the scene and found no fire, but that two men were confirmed dead.


Coastguards received several emergency calls from residents and passers-by who saw the air crash in a field by the cliff-edge.

Kent Police said the microlight crashed in Warden Road in the East Church area of Sheerness.

Emergency teams said the bodies were recovered by coastguards, but that their identities have yet to be established.

Investigators from the Civil Aviation Authority are at the scene.



Comiserations to family & friends .... !

EB

BBC news site saying two dead after a microlight (?) crash, members of the public report the aircraft 'disintergrated'.

RIP

Edited to say that myself and EB must have been posting at the same time.

I was flying over Sheppey at about the same time heading back to SEN from DVR. Sad news! :(

It was a flexwing microlight.

Very sad.:sad:

what a name for a flying machine in the circumstances......God rest their souls.

Quite close to where we live, and have friends who fly microlights from Rochester (need to call to see they are OK). From BBC Kent:-

"Two men died when their light aircraft crashed on the top of cliffs on the Isle of Sheppey in Kent.
Emergency teams said the accident happened in Plough Lane, just before 1400 BST on Saturday.

Members of the public told Thames Coastguard they saw the plane disintegrate in the air; coastguards said the men came down with the plane.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service said they attended the scene and found no fire, but that two men were confirmed dead.

Emergency calls


Rochester Airport control manager, Paul Richardson, who knew the men, said the pilot was in his 50s and the passenger in his early 20s.

"The passenger's family have been to the airport.

"They were very distressed and it was a while before they knew what was going on at the accident scene," he said.

Coastguards received several emergency calls from residents and passers-by who saw the air crash in a field by the cliff-edge.

"We are absolutely devastated. The pilot was a very close friend of ours," said a spokeswoman for the Rochester Microlight Flying School.

Investigators from the Civil Aviation Authority are at the scene. "


Steve

pegasus quik crash Kent
 

does anybody know the name of the pilot. I believe the wing parted company with the rest of the aircraft.:( RIP:(

Yes, several of us here do, but hold to the view that it's poor form to rush to publish names of those killed until they are released into the public domain by the authorities. It will be in the press soon enough no doubt.

As Fly Stimulator says.


This is an awful accident which has affected a great many people. The investigation is just starting, as is the painful process by which the bereaved must adjust their lives; unsurprisingly the police have not yet released the names - it's right that family are notified personally first.

We all have the deepest sympathies for the friends, colleagues and families of those who died. Whilst doing this, lets let those closest to them support them, and try to stay out of the way whilst the investigators do their job to try and find the cause, and prevent any recurrence of whatever happened here.

G

Awful, terrible news. Too often i have said the following words here recently. Deepest condolences to the families and friends of the deceased.

Foxy

AAIB investigation leads to manslaughter charge
 

"A 60-year-old man has been charged with manslaughter following the deaths of a pilot and his passenger in a microlight crash in Kent."

See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4665502.stm

Now this probably should be moved to GA forum in due course... but it's news: what's the last time you can remember a crash leading to a manslaughter charge in the UK?

AAIB report is here:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publicati...005_g_styx.cfm

"...the microlight's uprights upper fittings had been modified to comply with Service Bulletin 116 requiring the fitting of additional rivets. The additional rivets were not only fitted incorrectly, and without reference to the Service Bulletin, but two of them did not match the specification of those rivets supplied by the manufacturer..."

Presumably they've charged the rivetter...

R1

A helicopter engineer in 2001.

Link here


Heliport

Damn... should have remembered that one. Not really my department, but heard about it. Thanks Heli.

Interesting... that thread implies that the AAIB report was withheld until after the prosecution, presumably as it was prejudicial, whereas in the present case the prosecution followed the publication of the formal report.

R1

Long thread on this here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=198568

Ranger One

I remembered the previous occasion because it involved a helicopter.

It doesn't detract from the point you make. I can't think of any other aviation manslaughter case in the UK.

Worrying if people are now going to be prosecuted on the basis of information obtained by the AAIB.

H.

Not wishing to spoil the chat, but those of us closely involved are a bit concerned that too much loose talk about the technical details could possibly be prejudicial to the case.

The charge was unlawful killing of two people, BTW, which is a step up from gross negligence manslaughter, I think.

The inspector was a volunteer, not a licensed engineer. The aircraft was on a Permit to Fly, not a C of A.

VP

VP959 - I do understand from the other thread that you're not a stranger to some of the people involved in the case, but I don't think the above should be a serious concern - it's not as if there's going to be a lot of wild speculation about the causes, the AAIB report is in the public domain and contains as much of the technical detail as anyone could wish for. Whilst I understand some of the AAIB conclusions have ruffled feathers, the fact-finding is fairly clear-cut.

Flying Lawyer would be able to advise better on the legal aspects of discussing the case here, and in particular of the AAIB report being in the public domain. What's an AAIB report for, if not to inform the aviation community - and inevitably provoke discussion?

R1

No problem with discussion, but Flying Lawyer is unlikely to join in, perhaps you can guess why.

Perhaps I'm being overly cautious, but the discussion about this on other groups has been a bit controversial, to put it mildly.

My major fear is that that the accident cause has been at best over-stated with regard to accuracy and at worst has been down right wrongly reported, leading to possibly false impressions to be gained. Those that have read the report will have a problem equating a tested 10g equivalent failure load on a defectively modified component with the conclusions, for example.

Clearly there were many errors and ommissions by several people and organisations in this accident, as is often the case. My concern is that the focus has been on one man, who played a part in the chain, to the exclusion of all else.

One cannot help but wonder if this prosecution is in the public interest.

VP

I decided the other day to have a look at a report of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch into a fishing boat accident. The first thing that struck me was a statement on the first page:
"Extract from
The United Kingdom Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation)
Regulations 2005 – Regulation 5:“The sole objective of the investigation of an accident under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005 shall be the prevention of future accidents through the ascertainment of its causes and circumstances. It shall not be the purpose of an investigation to determine liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve its objective, to apportion blame.”
NOTE
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 purpose is to attribute or apportion liability or blame."
I have never seen such a statement in an AAIB report - seems strange the two sets of legislation are different.

The Chief Inspectors statement on the front page of the AAIB website is:

"The fundamental purpose of the AAIB is:

"To improve Aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. ...It is not to apportion blame or liability"

VP

I guess the first question will be the admissibility of the report.

Having said that, I do not understand what could have possessed anyone to not comply, or attempt to comply, exactly with a service bulletin.

The reasons for the pilot (for it was his responsibility under the regulations) not complying with the bulletin are unknown, but there has been much speculation.

Certainly the service bulletin as originally issued at this time was not very clear and very little emphasis was placed on the safety implications.

I have wondered quite how reasonable it was for a company to supply the owners of a £24000 aircraft with a 4.8mm drill bit, four 3/16 Avdel MonoBolts and a photocopied two page set of instructions with an undimensioned sketch and expect them to take a Black and Decker to primary structure themselves.

VP

Well £24k doesn't exactly buy hot and cold running spanner-monkeys :ok:

It's a good point made by VP959. A 24k car would have been subject to service recall, so why not a microlight?

Because a 24k car is designed and sold as mass-market transportation to people who may have no clue how to open the bonnet.

A microlight is sports equipment. No, I don't mean that in the slightest in a derogatory sense. But the microlight is better compared with a racing car, not a family runabout...

R1

they said:
 

AAIB: "A modification kit, that included the Service Bulletin, Avdel rivets and drill bit, was sent to the owner, who asked a BMAA inspector to assist him with the embodiment. The inspector sought advice from another individual who assured him that it was a simple job....
...the inspector has stated that he did not see a copy of the Service Bulletin before starting the job. After some discussion it was decided to fit the new rivets below the existing ones, because they felt it would be less likely to cause or create a crack in the aerofoil extrusion....
...The inspector could not explain why the wrong rivets had been fitted and did not appear to be aware of the differing mechanical properties of different types of rivets, how to determine if they had been correctly formed, or the importance of fitting them in the correct positions...
...Whilst the inspector read the Service Bulletin prior to signing the aircraft logbook, he still believed that his decision to fit the additional rivets below the existing rivets was correct."

In November 05 egbt wrote: [in full]
"Having read the report I wonder if the BMAA can survive if it does not make very major changes to it’s procedures and even bigger changes to it’s culture to ensure that they are followed.

IMHO everyone has a right to expect, when taking a flight in or buying an aircraft, that the aircraft conforms to the standards which the governing body says it does. I take Mike’s point about acceptance of risk but in this case the risk was being misrepresented –

* The aircraft had not in the past been maintained to the schedules - a 200 Hr service at > 300 Hrs! (OK perhaps not directly relevant to this accident but an accident waiting to happen)
* The mod was signed off by an inspector but was incorrectly done and not understood or checked properly.
* There was essentially no paperwork and the wing had (probably) not been inspected per the schedule.
* The inspector had signed that the paper work had been checked and was correct!
* The BMAA’s inspection system shown to be in some disarray – putting it kindly!

The BMAA system, in the widest sense of the word, did not pick any of this up and revalidated the aircraft’s permit. Thereby failing it’s customers, in its duty of care and the duty it assumed by asking for and accepting a regulatory role on behalf if the CAA.

And before the flaming starts I have no particular interest in PFA vs BMAA wars as I am not associated with either, although there is a strong probability I will be moving from a certified a/c to a permit one in the near future."

The inspector was a capable person in a position of responsibility who just didn't have the knowledge and expertise for the job in hand. As an ignorant guest landlubber I can't see how someone with no formal engineering qualifications and apparently limited technical expertise can have been entrusted by the BMAA to inspect and sign off aircraft. However, in carrying out the work and signing for it he clearly accepted responsibility when he should have deferred it.

The mod was embodied after the Permit renewal.

BMAA inspectors are not authorised to carry out work or repairs, or to help with them. If they do, then they are doing so as ordinary individuals, not BMAA inspectors.

It is the pilot/owners responsibility to ensure maintenance is carried out properly.

There is no requirement for the inspector to be shown proof of normal engine maintenance per se, he just has to be satisfied that the owner/pilot has done it. An inspector would have no way of knowing if an owners log book entry was correct or not., and has to largely take it on trust.

I agree that this investigation found many problem areas, but we are talking about a self-help organisation largely run by volunteers in their spare time. If one were to forensically examine any sporting association, say an amateur motor racing club, then I suspect similar problems might be highlighted.

The vast majority of BMAA inspectors have no formal aircraft engineering background and most will have been completely unused to dealing with structural repairs. Most inspection is making sure nuts and bolts are OK, tubes and wires aren't worn or damaged and that fabric is still in good condition.

VP

Thanks for the clarification VP959. I was unclear about the exact role of BMAA inspectors.

Is it just me having problems finding any posts dated later than 2.2.06 in this thread? There was one posted supposedly at 16:59hrs yesterday and one today at 14:22hrs but, as they were both made by the same person would I be correct in thinking they may have been removed because they were in some way unsuitable? :confused:

Yes, the thread has been hacked.

DX Wombat

I have an interest in this thread, having advised/represented the engineer until I left the Bar, and have been watching it very closely since it appeared yesterday - after a break of 2 years.

No posts have been removed since then. 100% certain.

But there may be some important news posted very soon. ;)

Nothing to do with me at all. I will see what I can dig up......

Something went wrong with the database software, to show that there were new 2008 posts but in fact the last showing was 2006.

Thank you everyone, it's good to know it wasn't just my vivid imagination. :)

The Attorney General has issued a Nolle Prosequi in this case bringing proceedings to an end.

This is a rare procedure (I understand it may be the first Nolle issued this century) and followed successful legal argument at the Old Bailey in January, and then an application to the A-G by his lawyers to halt further proceedings.

Although the proceedings were discontinued before any trial, the allegations would have been hotly contested and there was a strong defence.

The volunteer BMA Inspector was awarded his defence costs.

Congratulations are due to my friend and colleague Stephen Spence (barrister and PPL) who continued the defence when I left the Bar.

Had the trial proceeded, the defence would have challenged the prosecution case very strongly in several different areas and, although one can never forecast a verdict with 100% certainty, it was my firm view that the volunteer BMAA 'inspector' would be found Not Guilty.

I am no longer permitted to comment upon legal matters, but some might say this prosecution should never have been brought or, having been brought, should have been withdrawn a long time ago.
And some might say that, had the trial proceeded, the BMAA would not have come out of it smelling of roses.

As an aviator, I was disappointed (to say the least) to see the back-watching manner in which John Whelan, a volunteer 'inspector', was abandoned by the BMAA, although thankfully not by several members in a personal capacity - Jeremy Harris and others - who helped and supported him through this very long and extremely stressful process which has had dreadful consequences for his health.
I can only hope that, with the strain now over, Mr Whelan's health will gradually improve.

FL

playing the nutter card
 

i must be misunderstanding something ,...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.we pay a fortune to these people and mostly have nothing more than there word that work has been carried out. just because he gets a posh lawer who gets him off by playing the nutter card doesnt chance the fact he did it .you just prevent him from being made responsible for his actions...shame on you .reminds me of the usa ,if you pay enough cash you get away with anything...shame on you!!!!!!!!!