Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
Why is it a slur? Lets take this BBC news story as a line in the sand.
AAIB ready to publish report on Clutha helicopter crash - BBC News
In November 2014 the statement from the AAIB was:-
So describe the process that now follows and maintains the highest level of integrity that befits the AAIB. I struggle to see how an independent board investigating the facts of the matter need to circulate drafts...
Either the team were able to reach conclusions or as it has published many times in the past it is unable to conclude matters.
AAIB ready to publish report on Clutha helicopter crash - BBC News
In November 2014 the statement from the AAIB was:-
The statement said: "This, together with further examination of the aircraft and subsequent tests, has now been completed, to the extent that the investigation team may reach its conclusions.
"Several weeks are still required to complete the draft final report and it is expected that this draft will be circulated to 'interested parties', as defined by the Regulations, for comment early in 2015.
"The final report is expected to be published in the middle of 2015."
"Several weeks are still required to complete the draft final report and it is expected that this draft will be circulated to 'interested parties', as defined by the Regulations, for comment early in 2015.
"The final report is expected to be published in the middle of 2015."
Either the team were able to reach conclusions or as it has published many times in the past it is unable to conclude matters.
Does anybody seriously think a draft report should be put into the public domain?
The short answer is that circulating the draft report to involved parties for comment is required by ICAO annex 13. All countries' accident investigation departments (who are members of ICAO) have to comply with that. If you disapprove I suggest you write to ICAO and explain that you think they are doing it all wrong.
The purpose of the process is to allow comments to be received. These comments may or may not be used to amend the report, that is up to the reporting body. It helps prevent misunderstandings or minor factual inaccuracies from making it into the final report.
No, not really interested parties (after all, the press would be most interested!) but involved parties such as the operator, manufacturer of airframe and engines, and regulator
Because tigerfish is not so subtly suggesting that the AAIB might publish their reports to a timescale dictated by national politics; specifically in order that the public will be distracted from the contents of those reports by more 'newsworthy' stories.
It's an unpleasant assertion without supporting evidence.
Where has there ever been a credible example of the AAIB behaving in such a manner? (Outside of the strange mind of Ms Sturgeon, of course.)
It's an unpleasant assertion without supporting evidence.
Where has there ever been a credible example of the AAIB behaving in such a manner? (Outside of the strange mind of Ms Sturgeon, of course.)
The purpose of the process is to allow comments to be received. These comments may or may not be used to amend the report, that is up to the reporting body. It helps prevent misunderstandings or minor factual inaccuracies from making it into the final report.
I doubt in this case minor factual inaccuracies will make a hill of beans difference to the reasons for the crash or the people who have been most affected by the events, do you??
4-5 months to engage with parties that have likely already been involved in the process that generated the draft..
I doubt in this case minor factual inaccuracies will make a hill of beans difference to the reasons for the crash or the people who have been most affected by the events
I doubt in this case minor factual inaccuracies will make a hill of beans difference to the reasons for the crash or the people who have been most affected by the events
Although the report does not aim to apportion blame, it is often inevitable that blame becomes apparent from the report and so the fine detail of the wording is often argued over by the various interested parties (who of course are trying to protect their own arses). It is therefore not hard to see how another 60 to 90 days might pass before the report is ready for publication.
I have participated in an accident report (serious, though fortunately not fatal) - as an advisor and fortunately not as one being investigated - and this whole process does take a long time. In my case it was a foreign Board but I am sure it's the same the world over including UK.
Once the final report is published it's pretty hard to backtrack on a point or make a correction and so a lot of time is spent making sure that not only has the Board evaluated the accident correctly, but also that they have communicated their findings unambiguously - that latter part is no trivial task.
No, not really interested parties (after all, the press would be most interested!) but involved parties such as the operator, manufacturer of airframe and engines, and regulator
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Tiger fish, if you believe the assumed extension of mission time caused by combining Police Force areas is to blame for this accident then I am assuming you have decided that a low fuel state caused the accident.
The later may be the case, as yet we do not know. if low fuel state is the issue it could be caused by a technical or human error. again we do not know.
However, to suggest the increased mission lengths created this situation is a one dimensional approach to this complex issue. It rather implies that flying with the potential for running out of fuel is ok as long as the client does not ask to fly too far.
Let the AAIB do their impartial work.
As an aside I have flown Police an HEMS in UK. Whilst there are some awful realities about this tragedy, such as it was a public service helicopter supposed to help the public and of course the exact reverse happened, it is actually just another accident to AAIB. All accidents carry the spectre of litigation by someone against somebody. This accident is no different in these respects so I suggest you kerb the conspiracy theories and accept that for the AAIB, its business as usual.
The later may be the case, as yet we do not know. if low fuel state is the issue it could be caused by a technical or human error. again we do not know.
However, to suggest the increased mission lengths created this situation is a one dimensional approach to this complex issue. It rather implies that flying with the potential for running out of fuel is ok as long as the client does not ask to fly too far.
Let the AAIB do their impartial work.
As an aside I have flown Police an HEMS in UK. Whilst there are some awful realities about this tragedy, such as it was a public service helicopter supposed to help the public and of course the exact reverse happened, it is actually just another accident to AAIB. All accidents carry the spectre of litigation by someone against somebody. This accident is no different in these respects so I suggest you kerb the conspiracy theories and accept that for the AAIB, its business as usual.
DB - helicomparitors posts are very good and no doubt he has a good mind... 60 days he says, it's been over 120 days since it was reported they were distributing drafts (which makes note of the early 2015 timeframe they themselves gave).
Of course there could be all kinds of reasons for snags and hold ups but then if that is the case why not just communicate them? Not willing to engage seems Ivory tower.
Just saying.
Of course there could be all kinds of reasons for snags and hold ups but then if that is the case why not just communicate them? Not willing to engage seems Ivory tower.
Just saying.
Last edited by Pittsextra; 30th Apr 2015 at 09:12.
DB, Normally I would be one of the most strident in saying what you have. But don't you think that this one has gone on far longer than is reasonable given all the circumstances?
TF
TF
We always want the report out "yesterday" but in practice we should bear in mind a few things:
AAIB have limited resources and this accident is just one of many, many they have to look at. They have to prioritise and a case can easily be made that it is more important to concentrate on a "near miss" accident to an airliner with 100s of passengers in order to prevent a repeat that does turn into an accident, than it is to prioritise this "small fry" accident, despite of course the impact the accident had on those involved.
Secondly it will be a difficult accident to analyse with the absence of FDR/CVR. This leads to "balance of probability" type analysis and that presents lots of scope for challenge by involved parties with arses to protect, some of whom are large government bodies.
Just be patient, it will be out when it is out and nothing you say will change that.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pittsextra
DB - helicomparitors posts are very good and no doubt he has a good mind... 60 days he says, it's been over 120 days since it was reported they were distributing drafts (which makes note of the early 2015 timeframe they themselves gave).
Of course there could be all kinds of reasons for snags and hold ups but then if that is the case why not just communicate them? Not willing to engage seems Ivory tower.
Just saying.
Of course there could be all kinds of reasons for snags and hold ups but then if that is the case why not just communicate them? Not willing to engage seems Ivory tower.
Just saying.
Originally Posted by RTFM
I've just crunched the data on published formal reports by the AAIB back to 2006 (as far back as I could be bothered to go). The average length of time from incident to final report publication is 25.6 months, i.e. a little over two years. This does not and has not stopped them issuing recommendations, where appropriate, before the final report.
I'm quite happy for AAIB to resist the rabid frothing of the news media for sensational information to fill their 24-hour outpourings, and instead concentrate on trying to work out exactly what happened...
I'm quite happy for AAIB to resist the rabid frothing of the news media for sensational information to fill their 24-hour outpourings, and instead concentrate on trying to work out exactly what happened...
While there are significant differences between the two events, the tragic deaths being the most obvious, I still prefer that the AAIB ensure that their enquiries is entirely focused on estblishing the facts, as far as it is possible to do, than responding to the demands of "the media"...
Just saying...
Last edited by RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike; 30th Apr 2015 at 12:46.
The AAIB are positively meteoric in their response compared to some boards, e.g. Report on serious incident near Gullfaks B at Tampen HTZ 1. April 2010 with Sikorsky S-92A, LN-OQE operated by CHC Helikopter Service AS | aibn
5 years to report that: "It was discovered that the seat had detached from the rails because the forward slide stops were missing"
5 years to report that: "It was discovered that the seat had detached from the rails because the forward slide stops were missing"
RTFM,
Thank you! I have to say that I am surprised and would have expected the average to have been about 12 months less than that. But happy to be proved wrong and accept without question that the important thing is to get it right. So end of spin from me.
Guess its just a bit close to home base for me.
TF
Thank you! I have to say that I am surprised and would have expected the average to have been about 12 months less than that. But happy to be proved wrong and accept without question that the important thing is to get it right. So end of spin from me.
Guess its just a bit close to home base for me.
TF
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB are positively meteoric in their response compared to some boards, e.g. Report on serious incident near Gullfaks B at Tampen HTZ 1. April 2010 with Sikorsky S-92A, LN-OQE operated by CHC Helikopter Service AS | aibn
5 years to report that: "It was discovered that the seat had detached from the rails because the forward slide stops were missing"
5 years to report that: "It was discovered that the seat had detached from the rails because the forward slide stops were missing"
Clutha helicopter crash: AAIB completes draft report. BBC a few minutes ago.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: D-90449
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the avoidance of doubt, the link provided by msmfi is not the draft report referred to in the BBC report today. Rather, it is the second Special Bulletin on the accident, this one being issued by the AAIB on 16 December 2014.