Helicopter engineer cleared of manslaughter after crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think, from hearsay knowledge, that this may be related to the H300 crash near Reading last year that claimed the life of Dennis Kenyon's son and two companions.
The snippets I've heard about this incident aren't really substantiated enough to warrant an airing.
The snippets I've heard about this incident aren't really substantiated enough to warrant an airing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although I am not aware of a mechanic being charge criminally in regards to a crash it is within the realm of possibility in the United States. Whether you agree or not with the lawyers looking for deep pockets I would think in a case like this they want to affix blame and in some cases, get the maintenance organization or the operator involved as they have the deep pockets (read insurance). I do know of a specific case where Boeing suffered the loss of a commercial CH 47 in Scotland several years ago. The crash was traced to internal corrosion resulting from a design change made in the gearbox. They not only got Boeing involved but they also sued the manager of the design section and one of the designers directly involved in creating the change. No one is immune from prosecution.
On the reverse side of a US A&P certificate it says,” The holder hereof shall not perform or approve alterations, repairs or inspections of aircraft except in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements of the federal aviation regulations or such method, techniques and practices found acceptable to the administration”. If something goes wrong and the problem can be traced to the mechanic making an error his ass is grass and the FAA and the trial lawyers are the lawnmower.
------------------
The Cat
On the reverse side of a US A&P certificate it says,” The holder hereof shall not perform or approve alterations, repairs or inspections of aircraft except in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements of the federal aviation regulations or such method, techniques and practices found acceptable to the administration”. If something goes wrong and the problem can be traced to the mechanic making an error his ass is grass and the FAA and the trial lawyers are the lawnmower.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
A general lawyer tactic is to advise the client to go for broke - try to get as much as you can, then settle for something less. I wouldn't doubt that this is the case. With a bigger, more threatening lawsuit, the plaintiff has better odds at a big settlement.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There have been two or three prosecutions in New Zealand over the last 2/3 years involving engineers and bogus parts. If my memory serves me right two of these prosecutions have been successful - one on the West Coast of the South Island and one in the Bay of Plenty region in the North Island. In the later, the engineer was found guilty of manslaughter.
This prosecution followed the crash of an R-22, which killed two, because the 'home repaired' tailrotor fitted to the machine delaminated in flight. The blade had been sourced from a Californian junk yard. An American father and son where charged over selling bogus parts - I think that case was concluded recently also.
PAC ROTORS - can you remember more details??
This prosecution followed the crash of an R-22, which killed two, because the 'home repaired' tailrotor fitted to the machine delaminated in flight. The blade had been sourced from a Californian junk yard. An American father and son where charged over selling bogus parts - I think that case was concluded recently also.
PAC ROTORS - can you remember more details??
Guest
Posts: n/a
There has been a lot of talk/rumour on this matter in the last year. I understand the cheif eng lost his licence or it has been suspended. I am also led to beleive the servicing documents of all the helis maintained by the company where gone through by the CAA. Sensative subject as now going to court
Guest
Posts: n/a
Swashplate,
Given that the case is ongoing i'll limit what i'll say: the prosecution is being brought against the individual on the basis that he performed incorrect maintenance which resulted in the tailboom seperating and impacting with the MR. Willie is correct in that the CAA grounded all helicopters serviced by the company until it had reviewed maintainence records for each heli.
On a side note, and this has no bearing on the case as it was always going to prove fatal, it is likely that there were 3 individuals sat in the front, and that 2 of them were not belted in. They were thrown through the plexiglass on inital failure and subsequent impact of the tailboom with the rotor disk.
Given that the case is ongoing i'll limit what i'll say: the prosecution is being brought against the individual on the basis that he performed incorrect maintenance which resulted in the tailboom seperating and impacting with the MR. Willie is correct in that the CAA grounded all helicopters serviced by the company until it had reviewed maintainence records for each heli.
On a side note, and this has no bearing on the case as it was always going to prove fatal, it is likely that there were 3 individuals sat in the front, and that 2 of them were not belted in. They were thrown through the plexiglass on inital failure and subsequent impact of the tailboom with the rotor disk.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fellow Pruners
'Willy the one' is right. This is a now an extremely sensitive subject. The engineer is being prosecuted and the matter is now going to Court.
The Facts:
The Engineer has been charged with three counts of Manslaughter, and some associated ANO offences.
He will appear in a Magistrates Court on Monday. This is a formality in the judicial process; Magistrates are not qualified to deal with serious cases.
The case will be transferred to the Crown Court where it will be heard by a Judge and jury later this year.
As with all cases sent to the Crown Court for trial, the Press are restricted to reporting the name of the accused, the charges which he faces, and the fact that his case has been committed to the Crown Court for trial.
There is a very good reason for that rule. It is to ensure, so far as possible, that a defendant has a fair trial in which the jury tries the case on evidence which is properly produced in Court, uninfluenced by what they may have read in the Press - which may or may not be accurate.
If this thread continues, it is inevitable that people will speculate, repeat rumours they've heard, give "the facts" as they understand them to be, comment upon the pros and cons of the case, relate the facts of "similar" cases. As we can see from just a few posts, that has already begun.
Although PPRuNe is not part of the Press, it is (despite its name) a public forum read by many thousands of people who are interested in aviation, but not involved in it. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one of those will be called for jury service later in the year, and will be on the jury which tries the case.
This is a tragic case for EVERYONE concerned: Firstly, and obviously, for those who were killed and their families. Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, for the Engineer and his family - whatever the eventual outcome.
This is entirely different from the more common 'low flying' cases where what is at stake is a heavy fine and licensing action by the CAA.
May I ask you, please, to defer any further comment about the case until the trial is concluded.
For completeness, I should declare my interest in the case:
I have been asked to represent the Engineer. I would make precisely the same request if I had been asked to prosecute. Both sides in any criminal trial share one common interest, namely that there should be a fair trial.
'Willy the one' is right. This is a now an extremely sensitive subject. The engineer is being prosecuted and the matter is now going to Court.
The Facts:
The Engineer has been charged with three counts of Manslaughter, and some associated ANO offences.
He will appear in a Magistrates Court on Monday. This is a formality in the judicial process; Magistrates are not qualified to deal with serious cases.
The case will be transferred to the Crown Court where it will be heard by a Judge and jury later this year.
As with all cases sent to the Crown Court for trial, the Press are restricted to reporting the name of the accused, the charges which he faces, and the fact that his case has been committed to the Crown Court for trial.
There is a very good reason for that rule. It is to ensure, so far as possible, that a defendant has a fair trial in which the jury tries the case on evidence which is properly produced in Court, uninfluenced by what they may have read in the Press - which may or may not be accurate.
If this thread continues, it is inevitable that people will speculate, repeat rumours they've heard, give "the facts" as they understand them to be, comment upon the pros and cons of the case, relate the facts of "similar" cases. As we can see from just a few posts, that has already begun.
Although PPRuNe is not part of the Press, it is (despite its name) a public forum read by many thousands of people who are interested in aviation, but not involved in it. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one of those will be called for jury service later in the year, and will be on the jury which tries the case.
This is a tragic case for EVERYONE concerned: Firstly, and obviously, for those who were killed and their families. Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, for the Engineer and his family - whatever the eventual outcome.
This is entirely different from the more common 'low flying' cases where what is at stake is a heavy fine and licensing action by the CAA.
May I ask you, please, to defer any further comment about the case until the trial is concluded.
For completeness, I should declare my interest in the case:
I have been asked to represent the Engineer. I would make precisely the same request if I had been asked to prosecute. Both sides in any criminal trial share one common interest, namely that there should be a fair trial.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks a lot chaps, v. informative.
I just wanted to know the background info into this incident, having read the confusing piece on teletext. Totally agree with Mr Flying Lawyer re discussion, and I will now close this thread so that there no possiblity of 'trial by web'.
However, I look forward to a post from Flying Lawyer when the trial is over (if he is allowed to do so).
I just wanted to know the background info into this incident, having read the confusing piece on teletext. Totally agree with Mr Flying Lawyer re discussion, and I will now close this thread so that there no possiblity of 'trial by web'.
However, I look forward to a post from Flying Lawyer when the trial is over (if he is allowed to do so).
H300 crash near Reading
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter engineer cleared of manslaughter after crash
from Ananova News .....
Edited - original formatting didn't survive the 'new look' PPRuNe.
Content unchanged.
Heliport
Helicopter engineer cleared of manslaughter after crash
An aircraft engineer has been cleared of three charges of manslaughter after a helicopter crashed to the ground killing everyone on board. Paul Kenward, 47, from Biggin Hill, Kent, was cleared at Oxford Crown Court after the accident involving a Hughes 269C helicopter.
The aircraft plummeted to the ground on March 8, 2000, at Twyford, Berkshire, when the tail boom broke away and became entangled in the rotor blades. Kenward had ignored manufacturers' instructions to replace a cracked part which supported the tail boom and had it welded instead.
Brendan Loft, 38, Dennis Kenyon, 18, and Jane Biddolph, 23, all died instantly when the helicopter smashed into the ground and burst into flames minutes after taking off on a pleasure trip from the Booker airfield in High Wycombe, Bucks. Pilot Mr Loft of Reigate, Surrey, and his companions, from Shoreham in West Sussex, were pronounced dead at the scene of the crash.
Kenward, a trained aircraft engineer, licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority and with years of experience, pleaded guilty before the trial to three separate charges in connection with the fatal accident. He admitted allowing an aircraft to fly without a valid certificate of authority, a further charge of endangering an aircraft and failing to make an entry into an aircraft log book.
Sentencing has been adjourned for reports and will be held at a date to be fixed. The judge Mr Justice Aitkens told Kenward that he was considering all possibilities including a term of imprisonment. The maximum sentence Kenward can face is an unlimited fine, two years in prison or both.
Outside the court, Brendan Loft's father, Walter, 74, said: "We are very disappointed with the result. I feel terribly frustrated with the court system. This verdict sends out the wrong message to those involved in the maintenance of aircraft. We have lost a wonderful, wonderful son."
An aircraft engineer has been cleared of three charges of manslaughter after a helicopter crashed to the ground killing everyone on board. Paul Kenward, 47, from Biggin Hill, Kent, was cleared at Oxford Crown Court after the accident involving a Hughes 269C helicopter.
The aircraft plummeted to the ground on March 8, 2000, at Twyford, Berkshire, when the tail boom broke away and became entangled in the rotor blades. Kenward had ignored manufacturers' instructions to replace a cracked part which supported the tail boom and had it welded instead.
Brendan Loft, 38, Dennis Kenyon, 18, and Jane Biddolph, 23, all died instantly when the helicopter smashed into the ground and burst into flames minutes after taking off on a pleasure trip from the Booker airfield in High Wycombe, Bucks. Pilot Mr Loft of Reigate, Surrey, and his companions, from Shoreham in West Sussex, were pronounced dead at the scene of the crash.
Kenward, a trained aircraft engineer, licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority and with years of experience, pleaded guilty before the trial to three separate charges in connection with the fatal accident. He admitted allowing an aircraft to fly without a valid certificate of authority, a further charge of endangering an aircraft and failing to make an entry into an aircraft log book.
Sentencing has been adjourned for reports and will be held at a date to be fixed. The judge Mr Justice Aitkens told Kenward that he was considering all possibilities including a term of imprisonment. The maximum sentence Kenward can face is an unlimited fine, two years in prison or both.
Outside the court, Brendan Loft's father, Walter, 74, said: "We are very disappointed with the result. I feel terribly frustrated with the court system. This verdict sends out the wrong message to those involved in the maintenance of aircraft. We have lost a wonderful, wonderful son."
Edited - original formatting didn't survive the 'new look' PPRuNe.
Content unchanged.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 31st Jan 2006 at 16:08.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last two years have been tragic for all involved, having flown heli's out of Biggin I have been associated with the engineer in question and was extremely surprised as everyone else who has known him of the allegations and court case. . .. .My thoughts are with the family of the deceased.. .. .My feelings are that the eventual verdict is not a negative message towards engineers and quality of work, the very idea of waiting two years for the verdict in a manslaughter case must be the biggest reason ever not to cut corners!. .. .I believe the message is very clear 'stick to the rules or this could happen to you'. .He has served his two year sentence.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Years for three Fatals and the loss of an Aircraft.......Hmmmm, not to bad. Just shows what a good lawyer can do for you.... .Sometimes Pilots put too much faith in maintenance. Not being familiar with the case, Im wondering if the pilot was aware. Might have made a difference....... .Anyway, sad day all around.
Bert :. .. . I suspect the accident report on this one will be published in a few days, now the legal side of things appears to be finished.. .. . Check the <a href="http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/whatsnew/news.htm" target="_blank">UK AAIB What's New</a> web page about 10th - 12th April.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sousa... .. .Have to question your pilot / awareness quote....Surely there comes a time when a pilot has to put his faith in the staff that support the on-going operation.. .. .Every input to an aircraft operation is vital....that's why so many checks + balances are in place...... .. .That poor engineer....he's learnt by experience the hard way....Let's hope the whole of the industry can learn from such a mistake....Horrifying.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree pretty much with all the above. My experience has been as a pilot to get all the mechanical knowledge of the aircraft as I possibly can. Thats what I meant "was the pilot aware." I can guarantee I wouldnt settle for a weld job on a tailboom.... .Im sure the engineer/mechanic has a heavy load on him to carry for some time..... .Things are different here, they are throwing away the key on some for vehicular manslaughter cases.. .I also agree, there but for fortune....
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the reverse side of my Airframe and Powerplant certificate it says among other things the following: . .. . REPAIRMAN OPERATIONAL RESTRICTION. .. .The holder hereof shall not perform or approve alterations, repairs or inspections of aircraft accept in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements of the federal aviation regulations or such method, techniques and practices found acceptable to the administration.. .. .If a mechanic did otherwise, and an aircraft crashes, and it is determined that an illegal procedure was performed the mechanic can be held liable. He can be fined around $10,000 by the government and be held culpable in any legal action taken by the survivors of those killed or injured in the crash. He will also lose his ticket.