Helicopter missing in the Mourne Mountains, & tributes to AJ
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry its so late
I have just returned to reading this forum and was sad to learn of the death of AJ, I dont know how I managed to miss such news of such a sad loss.
"You think you know but you dont" and "FTFN" (Follow the fu**in Needle) will be phrases that many other Puma pilots who flew with AJ will recall.
A massive character and a great instructor who taught me a lot.
And to all that commented on him and the TV remote...YES.
My respects to his memory and his family.
"You think you know but you dont" and "FTFN" (Follow the fu**in Needle) will be phrases that many other Puma pilots who flew with AJ will recall.
A massive character and a great instructor who taught me a lot.
And to all that commented on him and the TV remote...YES.
My respects to his memory and his family.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Crash helicopter pilot's wife is sued by widow
Also at;
Express.co.uk Family of royal friend killed in a helicopter crash sue pilot’s wife
The family of a man killed in a horrific helicopter crash are suing the widow of the pilot at the controls.
Charles Stisted, a close friend of Prince Charles, William and Harry, died when the craft smashed into a mountain in Northern Ireland on the way back from a hunting trip.
The 47-year-old father-of-two was killed alongside pilot Anthony Smith and the aircraft's co-owner, construction tycoon Ian Wooldridge.
Today Mr Stisted's grieving wife Melissa revealed she is suing Mr Smith's widow, Angela, as well as Mr Wooldridge's family, for £300,000. They believe the pilot was negligent.
According to a writ at the High Court, Mrs Stisted holds the Wooldridges responsible for employing Mr Smith.
Charles Stisted, a close friend of Prince Charles, William and Harry, died when the craft smashed into a mountain in Northern Ireland on the way back from a hunting trip.
The 47-year-old father-of-two was killed alongside pilot Anthony Smith and the aircraft's co-owner, construction tycoon Ian Wooldridge.
Today Mr Stisted's grieving wife Melissa revealed she is suing Mr Smith's widow, Angela, as well as Mr Wooldridge's family, for £300,000. They believe the pilot was negligent.
According to a writ at the High Court, Mrs Stisted holds the Wooldridges responsible for employing Mr Smith.
Express.co.uk Family of royal friend killed in a helicopter crash sue pilot’s wife
THE family of a friend of Prince Charles who was killed in a helicopter crash have launched a legal battle against the widow of the pilot involved in the tragedy.
What a deeply erroneous course of action the Stisted's have embarked upon.
Nothing they can do will bring back Charles and nothing but time can ease the pain both they and Anthony's family feel.
If there are lessons to be learned from this tragedy then that is the job of the AAIB to discover, communicate and if necessary legislate.
Why place such a horrid and insensitive burden upon Angela and her family? I'm sorry but I find such behaviour to be both repulsive and selfish. Accidetns happen in this life - no one wishes for them.
In the Express article there is mention of a 'report'?
Nothing they can do will bring back Charles and nothing but time can ease the pain both they and Anthony's family feel.
If there are lessons to be learned from this tragedy then that is the job of the AAIB to discover, communicate and if necessary legislate.
Why place such a horrid and insensitive burden upon Angela and her family? I'm sorry but I find such behaviour to be both repulsive and selfish. Accidetns happen in this life - no one wishes for them.
In the Express article there is mention of a 'report'?
It might be "Legal" but it sure isn't nice.
I reckon rent on the digs must be a burden and one must keep up appearances.
All you young folks out there....pay attention to this.
It is your License, Your Life, and Your Future.....remember there are unhappy consequences to bad events that you might be held responsible for...and in some cases....your Next-of-Kin might have to pay for out of your Estate if you are killed in that same bad event.
Along with the Privileges of that License you hold are Responsibilities and Liabilities. When you are making your decisions.....keep that in mind.
Come Court time...your Boss Fellah is going to show up with his own Legal Counsel who is going to look out for the Boss Fellah's interests. You want Legal Counsel....you shall have to hire your own.
It isn't necessarily fair, nice, or something we talk about much....but it is Reality.
The Widow in this case has legal standing to initiate an action against the Pilot's Estate and if the Court agrees with her in the end....the Pilot's Widow is going to have to pay up. At the very least....she is going to have to endure a lot of heart ache, misery, and financial loss while defending against the action.
I did not know AJ...that I know of....and am making no observations about the merits of the action or the tragedy that led up to this happening.
I am just reminding our young folks who attend these parts of what can happen during their careers in aviation. Aviation can be rewarding on several layers but it also can be costly as well. Do your best to be on the correct side of that balance beam.
Just read the AAIB Report.
Here is the conclusion.....their Conclusion actually.
Anything beyond what is in bold print (my edit there....) is wasted conjecture.
The AAIB has no idea what caused the accident. As all the occupants died in the crash....and there were no CVR's....we shall never know what actually caused the crash.
It is a fact the aircraft flew smack dab into the hill about a 100 feet below the summit. We just don't know why.
The Plaintiffs Legal Counsel shall raise some very pointed questions and at some point a Judge or Jury shall have to decide what bearing the answers have on the situation.
I reckon rent on the digs must be a burden and one must keep up appearances.
All you young folks out there....pay attention to this.
It is your License, Your Life, and Your Future.....remember there are unhappy consequences to bad events that you might be held responsible for...and in some cases....your Next-of-Kin might have to pay for out of your Estate if you are killed in that same bad event.
Along with the Privileges of that License you hold are Responsibilities and Liabilities. When you are making your decisions.....keep that in mind.
Come Court time...your Boss Fellah is going to show up with his own Legal Counsel who is going to look out for the Boss Fellah's interests. You want Legal Counsel....you shall have to hire your own.
It isn't necessarily fair, nice, or something we talk about much....but it is Reality.
The Widow in this case has legal standing to initiate an action against the Pilot's Estate and if the Court agrees with her in the end....the Pilot's Widow is going to have to pay up. At the very least....she is going to have to endure a lot of heart ache, misery, and financial loss while defending against the action.
I did not know AJ...that I know of....and am making no observations about the merits of the action or the tragedy that led up to this happening.
I am just reminding our young folks who attend these parts of what can happen during their careers in aviation. Aviation can be rewarding on several layers but it also can be costly as well. Do your best to be on the correct side of that balance beam.
Just read the AAIB Report.
Here is the conclusion.....their Conclusion actually.
Conclusion
The accident occurred when the helicopter flew at a near constant height, heading and groundspeed into the western slope of Shanlieve. No technical fault was identified in the examination of the wreckage, but given the extreme disruption of the airframe and flying controls, a full inspection was not possible and therefore a technical fault cannot be completely ruled out. The helicopter impacted the terrain some 100 ft below the summit height of 2,054 ft.
Without clearer evidence of the pilot’s actions or intentions, no conclusive causal factors for the accident could be established. However, as possible contributory factors, it is likely that the upper slopes of the ridge were obscured by cloud and some combination of visual or distracting factors led the pilot to consider that he was clear of terrain. Whilst there was no evidence of any pre-existing condition or disease, subtle pilot incapacitation could not be ruled out.
The accident occurred when the helicopter flew at a near constant height, heading and groundspeed into the western slope of Shanlieve. No technical fault was identified in the examination of the wreckage, but given the extreme disruption of the airframe and flying controls, a full inspection was not possible and therefore a technical fault cannot be completely ruled out. The helicopter impacted the terrain some 100 ft below the summit height of 2,054 ft.
Without clearer evidence of the pilot’s actions or intentions, no conclusive causal factors for the accident could be established. However, as possible contributory factors, it is likely that the upper slopes of the ridge were obscured by cloud and some combination of visual or distracting factors led the pilot to consider that he was clear of terrain. Whilst there was no evidence of any pre-existing condition or disease, subtle pilot incapacitation could not be ruled out.
The AAIB has no idea what caused the accident. As all the occupants died in the crash....and there were no CVR's....we shall never know what actually caused the crash.
It is a fact the aircraft flew smack dab into the hill about a 100 feet below the summit. We just don't know why.
The Plaintiffs Legal Counsel shall raise some very pointed questions and at some point a Judge or Jury shall have to decide what bearing the answers have on the situation.
Last edited by SASless; 21st Feb 2012 at 13:23.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the logic is extended, then 3000 odd 9/11 victims families should sue President bush for billions for presiding over security forces which were negligent in not arresting the terrorist plotters and furthermore they should then also sue the entire population of the US who voted for Bush as it was they who appointed him.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
And don't forget the definition of a jury - 12 people not smart enough to get out of it.
I did know AJ, and without knowing the full circumstances of the accident, it is highly unlikely that he would have been negligent.
Phil
I did know AJ, and without knowing the full circumstances of the accident, it is highly unlikely that he would have been negligent.
Phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well the report concludes that mechanical failure could not be ruled out, nor subtle pilot incapacitation. Not sure what standard of proof is required in this action though, on the balance of probabilities there might be something to discuss, but it would seem to be hard to conclude negligence beyond reasonable doubt with the report conclusions as they stand.
MG: Thank you. Interesting to see that the AAIB are now utilising Google Earth in their report. Regarding the outcome .. I think we were all expecting this. 
SAS: What you point-out is factual but wouldn't have been the case a couple of decades ago in a largely pre-litigious Europe. The cautions about choices are however (and as you suggest) good notes for those entering the fray.
FS: Couldn't agree with you more.
PACO: I didn't know AJ but I do know how it can get. There was my godfather, Col. Bob, some 20,000 hours, the 12th helicopter pilot to be licenced in the UK, former test pilot etc. etc. and ends up pranging a 206 in foul weather on a beach just south of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He, if anyone, knew the volatility of VFR operations but .. I've seen how it can catch even the most experienced drivers out.
In Papua New Guinea I was exposed to the fastest-changing weather patterns I have ever encountered and more than once (each time mercifully alone) did I end up on the wrong side of reason when it came to being airborne in the most undesirable kind of soup.
Eventually, after some 'too close for comfort' encounters with wx, a younger Savoia embraced a self-enforced discipline in which I basically said to myself "thus far and no further". Amazingly from that point forward things became considerably easier.
The price? I was no longer 'Mr Can Do' .. I ended-up landing in obscure locations more frequently to wait out the weather (sometimes overnighting in the cab) and I was sometimes 'passed-over' when it came to specific assignments because it was known that 'Sav wouldn't drive in the soup'.
What am I saying? That this low-vis VFR-nightmare challenge has and continues to take some of the best in the industry and, sadly, will probably continue to do so as a result of the fact that our birds generally don't fly where the sky is clear but must carry on in the murk and muck in order to get the job done.
SAS: What you point-out is factual but wouldn't have been the case a couple of decades ago in a largely pre-litigious Europe. The cautions about choices are however (and as you suggest) good notes for those entering the fray.
FS: Couldn't agree with you more.
PACO: I didn't know AJ but I do know how it can get. There was my godfather, Col. Bob, some 20,000 hours, the 12th helicopter pilot to be licenced in the UK, former test pilot etc. etc. and ends up pranging a 206 in foul weather on a beach just south of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He, if anyone, knew the volatility of VFR operations but .. I've seen how it can catch even the most experienced drivers out.
In Papua New Guinea I was exposed to the fastest-changing weather patterns I have ever encountered and more than once (each time mercifully alone) did I end up on the wrong side of reason when it came to being airborne in the most undesirable kind of soup.
Eventually, after some 'too close for comfort' encounters with wx, a younger Savoia embraced a self-enforced discipline in which I basically said to myself "thus far and no further". Amazingly from that point forward things became considerably easier.
The price? I was no longer 'Mr Can Do' .. I ended-up landing in obscure locations more frequently to wait out the weather (sometimes overnighting in the cab) and I was sometimes 'passed-over' when it came to specific assignments because it was known that 'Sav wouldn't drive in the soup'.
What am I saying? That this low-vis VFR-nightmare challenge has and continues to take some of the best in the industry and, sadly, will probably continue to do so as a result of the fact that our birds generally don't fly where the sky is clear but must carry on in the murk and muck in order to get the job done.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't forget the definition of a jury - 12 people not smart enough to get out of it
In trials, a group of people who are selected and sworn to inquire into matters of fact and to reach a verdict on the basis of the evidence presented to them
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must have been in PNG about the same time Savoia. I had an engine failure in a 500 and after the engine change I was told to follow the 500 that brought the engine and engineer back to Goroka. At the time I had a similar reputation to yourself as someone who would not fly in below-minima conditions and to make matter worse I was ex-military. The pilot of the other 500 thought he would teach me a lesson in bush flying and I was so intent on following him weaving through the tree tops that I didn't notice that we were in cloud and lost. The Pacific 500s were not fitted with attitude indicators you will remember.
I had to be restrained from killing him when we (fortunately) both landed.
Novice pilots should take heed of the wise words of SASless. If something goes wrong all those tossers pressuring you into flying will not be seen. You are on your own, or even worse, your grieving family will be on their own and being sued.
I had to be restrained from killing him when we (fortunately) both landed.
Novice pilots should take heed of the wise words of SASless. If something goes wrong all those tossers pressuring you into flying will not be seen. You are on your own, or even worse, your grieving family will be on their own and being sued.
If one has any time in this business.....one has hung one's Neck out awaiting the Fall of Mr. Damocles's Sword. After a while, if one has a modicum of commonsense and understanding of the meaning of "Mortality"....one alter's one's behavior and minimum weather standards. As this is a very exacting business at times.....a moment's inattention or distraction can lead to bad outcomes. If those moments are combined with gross errors in judgment, poor proficiency, or just plain bad luck....you are really in for trouble. Fledglings and even Old Farts need to heed the wisdom of mending one's erring ways. The most difficult word in a Helicopter Pilot's Lexicon is the one syllable word "NO!" when used in the Imperative Tense. Once uttered....it should never be retracted especially under duress, pressure, or persuasion, unless one independently surfaces new and more accurate information upon which to make the same decision as before but using the new and more accurate data. Then, in the absence of the extraneous input from before.....a new and fresh decision can be made.
Bottom line...it is Ass, Tin, and License in that priority. Save your hide first...then try to save the Aircraft....and last of all worry about your license. Without the other two the license is of no value....without you....the other two are meaningless. The Aircraft is a reusable container that is there to protect the occupants...use it to your best advantage.
Fly Safe....it might be boring...but it pays off in the long run.
Bottom line...it is Ass, Tin, and License in that priority. Save your hide first...then try to save the Aircraft....and last of all worry about your license. Without the other two the license is of no value....without you....the other two are meaningless. The Aircraft is a reusable container that is there to protect the occupants...use it to your best advantage.
Fly Safe....it might be boring...but it pays off in the long run.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I agree with Sasless. Unfortunately some of you may not agree but the above thread it is a sad one. Talking about a guy who ploughed it into a hill, in bright staring sunshine, pilot error or aircraft techinal problems, but at such low level will not give you much time either way. I had dealings with AJ, and he may have been the best guy and family loved him, like all of us that go up in the air...... but if I want to say certain things, it would be unprofessional.
Fluffy5
Fluffy5
Am I missing something here? The facts in the AAIB report indicate perfectly clearly that the cause of the accident is unknown. Given that that conclusion is the result of a thorough investigation by experts, what evidence exists to support the claim that
"...didn’t take account of the mountain"?! How on earth did this ever get to court 
I'd be interested in FlyingLawyer's views..
...Mr Smith failed to consult charts of the terrain of his intended route, failed to plot a route which avoided obstacles, had not planned the flight properly, and didn’t take account of the mountain.
...failing to ensure the flight could be safely completed, failing to update the flight navigation system and failing to appreciate that continuing on the same course, at the same altitude and speed, would inevitably result in a collision with the mountain.
...failing to ensure the flight could be safely completed, failing to update the flight navigation system and failing to appreciate that continuing on the same course, at the same altitude and speed, would inevitably result in a collision with the mountain.
I'd be interested in FlyingLawyer's views..
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
lewy - I've long been an advocate of having "technical juries" - i.e. a small panel of experts who know what they (or you in the dock) are talking about. More a tribunal than a court case. Juries are supposed to be made up of your peers. I suggest you wouldn't find too many with a pilot's licence.
Many juries have convicted people wrongly in the face of common sense because they want to believe the authorities rather than the facts (wanting to get home quicker probably has a lot to do with it). As an example, you or I would appreciate that the h/v curve is normally advisory and not validated for approaches anyway, but if you land badly in a hotel and some lawyer persuades them them otherwise...........
"to inquire into matters of fact ". Juries don't inquire, except perhaps a Grand Jury. And they are very often not presented with exonerating facts either.
Your definition is OK for law college but not for the real world. Mine may be a little cynical and facetious, but I suspect it's much closer to the truth, with all due respect to the people who genuinely wish to do their civic duty. The essential point is that you will have to explain your actions and decisions to people who simply may not understand, so fly accordingly (Sasless has it right). I'm sure an expert witness or two out there will have something to add.
"Failing to update the navigation system"? Where's the law that says you have to use it?
phil
Many juries have convicted people wrongly in the face of common sense because they want to believe the authorities rather than the facts (wanting to get home quicker probably has a lot to do with it). As an example, you or I would appreciate that the h/v curve is normally advisory and not validated for approaches anyway, but if you land badly in a hotel and some lawyer persuades them them otherwise...........
"to inquire into matters of fact ". Juries don't inquire, except perhaps a Grand Jury. And they are very often not presented with exonerating facts either.
Your definition is OK for law college but not for the real world. Mine may be a little cynical and facetious, but I suspect it's much closer to the truth, with all due respect to the people who genuinely wish to do their civic duty. The essential point is that you will have to explain your actions and decisions to people who simply may not understand, so fly accordingly (Sasless has it right). I'm sure an expert witness or two out there will have something to add.
"Failing to update the navigation system"? Where's the law that says you have to use it?
phil
Last edited by paco; 21st Feb 2012 at 17:59.
Paco....
You would not want me as the Plaintiff's Counsel if you ran that one up the flag pole!
Rule Two of being a good Lawyer...."Never ask a question you do not know the answer to...or you do not want the answer to."
"Failing to update the navigation system"? Where's the law that says you have to use it?"
Rule Two of being a good Lawyer...."Never ask a question you do not know the answer to...or you do not want the answer to."
Last edited by SASless; 21st Feb 2012 at 18:40.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a common thing to do when one has lost someone close to them ... place blame. I know, I've been there.
I understand that Charles Stisted's widow need to come to terms with her bereavement and placing blame is part of that. I wish that she could also understand that there is another widow who is similarly grieving and no doubt going through her own turmoils of blame and wondering whether her husband really did cause his own, and others', deaths.
Whatever happens, I cannot see any good coming from it. Financial and legal gain does not ease the grief; only time can do that.
If Mrs. Stisted or her representatives should read this, I would urge that the decision to commence legal action be reconsidered.
Cheers
Whirls
I understand that Charles Stisted's widow need to come to terms with her bereavement and placing blame is part of that. I wish that she could also understand that there is another widow who is similarly grieving and no doubt going through her own turmoils of blame and wondering whether her husband really did cause his own, and others', deaths.
Whatever happens, I cannot see any good coming from it. Financial and legal gain does not ease the grief; only time can do that.
If Mrs. Stisted or her representatives should read this, I would urge that the decision to commence legal action be reconsidered.
Cheers
Whirls
It could be that AJ's estate is not the true target of this litigation and that they hope that by establishing that he was responsible then they can move on to the much wealthier estate of the person that employed him in the first place... Either way - it must be terrible for AJ's family.
For balance, however, lets remember that there is a woman now bringing up two kids on her own (very possibly without an income?) who's wondering why a helicopter that had nothing identifiable found to be wrong with it flew straight and level into a well known mountain.... there are two sides.
Remember this is a civil court, so it's not "beyond reasonable doubt" it's "balance of probabilities".
I'm afraid that i think this one might have longer legs than many of us will be comfortable with...
food for thought
OH
For balance, however, lets remember that there is a woman now bringing up two kids on her own (very possibly without an income?) who's wondering why a helicopter that had nothing identifiable found to be wrong with it flew straight and level into a well known mountain.... there are two sides.
Remember this is a civil court, so it's not "beyond reasonable doubt" it's "balance of probabilities".
I'm afraid that i think this one might have longer legs than many of us will be comfortable with...
food for thought
OH
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe there was a similar move by the widow/partner of the pax in the Mick Goss/Harding accident. Not sure what the outcome was: does anyone know? [I am not suggesting there is any similarity between the circumstances of the accidents, but the legal relationships are not radically different].
For civil cases, such as these, the test is one of the balance of probabilities, so it is much easier to argue the case as a plaintiff than as a prosecutor. Some might think that, if you have the funds, it is therefore "worth a punt".
Talking generally, as I have no particular knowledge of this case, (other than knowing AJ a little), it seems to be the modern way is for the bereaved to desire to blame someone through the courts. The only certain winners in such a case will be the lawyers, of course.
It is a cautionary tale for all of us who operate freelance/self-employed or indeed through our own service company. Who wants to have their family facing such a legal case, after their death, presumably with the prospect of losing the family home? However, what do you do to prevent or mitigate it, other than be careful and cautious (as SASless suggests)? I am distinctly less "bold" than I used to be, these days. Expect support from no one.
I raised this issue of the freelancers' liability in a thread a while back. One key practical step suggested was to try and get you, as an individual, named on the aircraft insurance. This may be easier in some cases than others.
For civil cases, such as these, the test is one of the balance of probabilities, so it is much easier to argue the case as a plaintiff than as a prosecutor. Some might think that, if you have the funds, it is therefore "worth a punt".
Talking generally, as I have no particular knowledge of this case, (other than knowing AJ a little), it seems to be the modern way is for the bereaved to desire to blame someone through the courts. The only certain winners in such a case will be the lawyers, of course.
It is a cautionary tale for all of us who operate freelance/self-employed or indeed through our own service company. Who wants to have their family facing such a legal case, after their death, presumably with the prospect of losing the family home? However, what do you do to prevent or mitigate it, other than be careful and cautious (as SASless suggests)? I am distinctly less "bold" than I used to be, these days. Expect support from no one.
I raised this issue of the freelancers' liability in a thread a while back. One key practical step suggested was to try and get you, as an individual, named on the aircraft insurance. This may be easier in some cases than others.