Police EC135 crash Glasgow
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Hibernia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC135 crash Glasgow
Anybody know if an interim report has been published concerning the BAS EC135 that crashed near Glasgow. Various rumours circulating up North ref FADEC, CFIT etc but no facts.
AP
AP
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AP,
Had a quick check of the AAIB website and could not find anything yet:
www.aaib.dtlr.gov.uk/index/
Had a quick check of the AAIB website and could not find anything yet:
www.aaib.dtlr.gov.uk/index/
They didn't hide anything on the BHL 76 that came first in the blade slinging contest a few months back.....what could they wish to ignore in this one?
The crash, because it didn't injure anyone seriously, is not at the top of the AAIB pile. It is suggested that it could therefore take some considerable time for anything to 'leak out'
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having worked with several accident boards, let me offer this observation:
The board's primary purpose is to prevent any more accidents from occurring. If the initial findings produce facts that change the way we maintain, inspect or operate, they might be quickly disseminated to the users (a widget is failing, a nut is loostening up, etc). Sometimes, the inspections are proven unnecessary or prematurely required, but the risk of having repeats makes this burden very acceptable.
If the board sees a more routine cause, or simply none apparent, it will be much more deliberate, and will NEVER speculate (speculation means unfounded "I wonder if....." statements).
I have never seen a coverup in any way, on any board I have known. Those empty headed assertions otherwise are usually right up there with faked moon landings, Pentagon attacks by the USAF and grassy knoll gunmen, interesting speculation from ignorant people with too much time on their hands! Aside from the professionalism of those generally involved, most countries and Military services have shown the wisdom of having the board chair as an independent person, not beholding to the entity that operates the aircraft. At times, the NTSB in the States clashes with the FAA because of this, perhaps because the NTSB recommends sweeping (and expensive or perhaps impractical) solutions for isolated accident causes, and the FAA has to help determine the economic and practical impact of these recommendations.
The board's primary purpose is to prevent any more accidents from occurring. If the initial findings produce facts that change the way we maintain, inspect or operate, they might be quickly disseminated to the users (a widget is failing, a nut is loostening up, etc). Sometimes, the inspections are proven unnecessary or prematurely required, but the risk of having repeats makes this burden very acceptable.
If the board sees a more routine cause, or simply none apparent, it will be much more deliberate, and will NEVER speculate (speculation means unfounded "I wonder if....." statements).
I have never seen a coverup in any way, on any board I have known. Those empty headed assertions otherwise are usually right up there with faked moon landings, Pentagon attacks by the USAF and grassy knoll gunmen, interesting speculation from ignorant people with too much time on their hands! Aside from the professionalism of those generally involved, most countries and Military services have shown the wisdom of having the board chair as an independent person, not beholding to the entity that operates the aircraft. At times, the NTSB in the States clashes with the FAA because of this, perhaps because the NTSB recommends sweeping (and expensive or perhaps impractical) solutions for isolated accident causes, and the FAA has to help determine the economic and practical impact of these recommendations.
It doesn't seem to me that this report is taking an abnormally long time to come out - thoroughness obviously takes time. The Dyfed Powys crash was rather earlier and that's not out yet either.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a glossy AAIB leaflet (dated March 2002) which says they do about 350 reportable acccidents each year.
2% are the so called 'Inspector's Investigations' - the yellow formal reports - which they claim to do in '12 months' (but its not clear if that's a target or an average or what).
23% are Field Investigations which go into the monthly bulletin in '6 months'.
The other 75% are reported on in the monthly bulletin and are based on the air accident investigation form submitted by the pilot in '3 months'. Usually they don't even view the wreckage (hence their embarrassment over the first of the two identical A109 Powers accidents a few years back).
I assume if the debris is at Farnborough they must be doing one of the first two. If its a formal report its not really overdue yet, though I guess they would have made interim recommendations if there was any major hazard.
Perhaps its a pity they don't do an annual report like the Marine AIB that 'contains information about the branch's performance and accident statistics'.
2% are the so called 'Inspector's Investigations' - the yellow formal reports - which they claim to do in '12 months' (but its not clear if that's a target or an average or what).
23% are Field Investigations which go into the monthly bulletin in '6 months'.
The other 75% are reported on in the monthly bulletin and are based on the air accident investigation form submitted by the pilot in '3 months'. Usually they don't even view the wreckage (hence their embarrassment over the first of the two identical A109 Powers accidents a few years back).
I assume if the debris is at Farnborough they must be doing one of the first two. If its a formal report its not really overdue yet, though I guess they would have made interim recommendations if there was any major hazard.
Perhaps its a pity they don't do an annual report like the Marine AIB that 'contains information about the branch's performance and accident statistics'.