MoD pays £5 Million to plane crash victims family
 

BBC NEWS

The MoD denies liability, but reached a settlement ahead of a High Court claim for damages due to start next week.

'Life-threatening situation'

The family had taken off on the morning of the accident from Elstree airfield in Hertfordshire and flew to Cornwall where Mr Paton was intending to treat the family to lunch at a Padstow restaurant.

The weather was fine and the visibility good when Mr Paton was given clearance to land at St Mawgan.

However, just as the Cessna was about to touch down, the Sea King, which had just taken off, suddenly loomed into view.

In his written argument to the court, the family's counsel, Mr Charles Haddon-Cave QC, said the helicopter "made as if to cross the runway" directly in the Cessna's path and Mr Paton "had to deal with an immediate and life-threatening situation".

Mr Paton took emergency avoiding action but lost stability after the Cessna passed through a wake vortex from the helicopter's powerful rotas and the light aircraft crashed just beside the runway.

My sympathies go out to the family involved.

It does seem strange that the MOD are paying when the AAIB report includes the following in it's conclusion.
Thinking about it the MOD will not pay it will be the rest of the GA world, notice introduction of insurance indemnity fees for civilian aircraft landing at MOD airfields.

PM

Isn't there fees like that already?

I guess that the Mod looked at the cost of defending the case and decided to settle . If you look at the legal cases in the U.S - there was a case where from memory a vacuum pump manufacturer was forced out of the market even after the FAA found no fault with it's product after a crash.

If ever there was a 'legal' item on PPRuNe to which I would dearly love to respond in order to correct the misleading impression and provide balance, this is it.
Unfortunately, and very frustratingly, I can't. I represented the MoD so professional propriety prevents me from doing so, particularly as the High Court has not yet approved the proposed settlement. It's a pity the Claimant's solicitor doesn't feel similarly restrained - but that comes as no surprise to me.

"In his written argument to the court, the family's counsel said .......... etc etc
The key word is 'argument.' Arguments we advance on behalf of our clients contain our clients' allegations and claims. However boldly they may be expressed, it doesn't necessarily mean they are correct - nor does it mean they will be successful when the other side of the argument is heard.
(Clue: A key extract from the AAIB report has already been posted. The AAIB investigators are of course independent and impartial - they are not trying to win a case.)

"she always felt that her husband's death was not his fault."
Human nature being what it is, that is entirely understandable and no doubt she always will. That doesn't mean it's correct.

Please don't think I'm being unsympathetic. It was a tragic accident which resulted in the loss of a good husband and father who was not only successful in his career but also clearly a good man - but the completely one-sided account given to the Press creates a very distorted impression of what happened.
Sympathy for deceased and bereaved is natural, but it's important not to forget the living who have to cope with allegations that they caused someone's death.

I could easily correct the thoroughly misleading impression given by the press story if I was prepared to follow the Claimant solicitor's example - and the temptation to do so is almost irresistable - but I'm not prepared to do that.


Tudor Owen

Tudor - I share your feelings.

I note from the AAIB report:

Post accident inspection of the aircraft found the throttle to be in the fully open position, with the flaps UP and the cowl flaps OPEN, in accordance with the 'after landing' check list. It was not possible, without using a large amount of force, to close the throttle until the friction had been released.

From the configuration of the aircraft, therefore, it appeared that the pilot was trying to execute a 'go-around' from the runway at the time of the accident even though he did not make any comment to his passengers regarding his intentions.

Furthermore, a colleague, who had been in the aircraft with the pilot on another occasion and in a similar landing situation recalled that when the aircraft had veered to the left on touchdown, the pilot had carried out a 'go-around' by retracting the flaps fully, applying full power and taking off for a further circuit.*

That seems very odd. As was the passengers' statement that "The pilot was seen by his passengers to have both hands on the control column trying to maintain control of the aircraft.."

That sounds awfully like someone resorting to 'motoring' reactions to an unexpected yawing motion on the runway - using aileron rather than rudder. Was he trying to 'steer straight'? A cognitive failure, perhaps? The accident seems to have occurred long after any remote possibility of rotor wake could plausibly have been encountered....

See http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publicati...sna_501305.cfm for the full report.

RIP

*my bold text for clarity

I hope that the RAF crew can see this as a form of closure for this sad accident. I know that they have had this hanging over them for some time now.

My sympathies go out to the familly involved.

RIP

The problem is that the media today are seeing this as a legal victory for the family concerned and hence a guilty verdict for the Queenie crew. I feel the MoD should have fought their corner on principal, because if this happens again, and it costs the MoD a further £5m, I can see RAF airfields being permanently closed to all GA traffic. I think that would be a bad thing.

That would not be a bad thing from a taxpayers point of view..

why not, dont GA pay taxes?

RAF Benson has very clear and explicit segregation procedures between medium lift helicopters and light aircraft.

It should be the model for all other mixed RW and light FW operations. Several years ago there was no such protocol and the turbulence I encountered in a Bulldog during an instrument go-around from the breeze of a passing Wessex was memorable, to say the least.

Sympathy to the family, however, having read the report it would appear that the MOD wasted £5m. The Seaking contributed very little to the incident. The Cessna pilot, IMHO, over-reacted badly to a completely inoccuous situation and then screwed up the go-around.

With regards to GA traffic using MOD Airfields............on initial contact with airtraffic the GA traffic should be warned "use at your own risk, we accept no liability" or make all arrivals at the airfield subject to PPR at all times thus ensuring that GA traffic are briefed on airfield procedures.

I wait with interest to see how much the MOD will compensate the families of the two chinook pilots who have been blamed unjustly for the 1994 crash on the Mull, when it is proved that their airships screwed up in their haste to find a scapegoat.

They wouldn't be able to use a 'no liability' clause . Any lawyer worth his salt would be able to draw rings round it. I guess it will mean increased landing fees for GA to allow for the risk.

There's no need for speculation as to the cause or results of the accident as there is an AAIB report - helicopter not involved.

How did it get to this? Let's pay out 5 million!!!!! If this sort of thing is likely to cost the MOD again MOD airfields should just shut the doors to GA.

My sympathies to the family involved !

But, this happened at the very same base that the local authorities wish the RAF to remain at in order to provide services such as ATC and emergency cover.

I wonder how many more instances of this there would have been had the MoD decided to base JSF there ?

Safety_Helmut

Anita Bush, you made an interesting point when you wrote "I hope that the RAF crew can see this as a form of closure for this sad accident. I know that they have had this hanging over them for some time now."

Quite what have they had 'hanging over them'? The AAIB report made it quite clear that the Sea King downwash had been no factor during the Cessna's approach and landing; it was when the Cessna pilot later attempted a high speed runway manoeuvre not in accordance with normal aviation practice that he clearly lost control.

So how could the Sea King crew have considered themselves to have been in any way to blame? The AAIB report states that there was a vague possibility of the out of control aircraft taking off and stalling, recovery from which might perhaps have been made more difficult due to the 'light breeze' effect of the Sea Kings rotor downwash, but certainly not as a direct result of encountering rotor vortex effects. In any case, that was mere unproven speculation.

Out of interest, what did the RAF's own BoI say? Because if that had attributed any blame to the Sea King crew, then clearly that would have undermined any reasonable defence the MoD could have put forward to refute the claim and an out of court settlement was probably the only option.

RIP

Beags

With the crew subjected to a RAF BOI, a civil BOI, with a least one of those (I cannot recal which) reopened, folowed only a few months ago with news that the family were persuing a private prosecution. That is what has been hanging over them for five and a half years

Far too long to reach final conclusion.

I certainly agree, Anita.

What did the RAF BoI conclude? Who was its reviewing officer?

Sorry.. don't have that info.

I must admit to being slightly lost here. An independant body concluded that the Sea King had nothing to do with the accident; but the MoD still pay out £5M?

Why? Is there an implication that they shouldn't have allowed the helicopter; or any other traffic; to do anything which might "spook" a GA Cessna?

Perhaps the answer is to shut everywhere to GA. By the sounds of things this was a horrible accident caused by someone getting a bit surprised by the Sea King and initiating a manoeuvre his experience didn't allow him to conclude safely. Tragic, but surely not St Mawgan's fault.