Inquest: 'Rotorblade downwash did not cause plane crash'
 

OK...now there's a definitive answer for you!

Did it have an effect or not?

If it did...what effect did it have?

If it did not cause the accident....what did?

Why was the RAF so quick to settle if there was a chance the Sea King did not cause the accident?


Granted that is a news report and not the accident report....but Geez Louise!

SASless

My reading of the AAIB report, coupled with the inquest evidence, reinforces my view that Paton was spooked by the Sea King while he was already having difficulty with the landing and possibly considering a go-around. There's a telling piece of evidence in the AAIB report about him behaving similarly during a landing previously, when ISTR he carried out a go-around.

I can't explain why the MoD settled so early, either.

SASless

Did it have an effect or not?

(1) While the Cessna was on the runway:

The pilot expert hired by the Claimants (a retired Group Captain now CFI at a flying school) claimed it did, and considerable pressure was put on the AAIB suggesting the finding of their investigation team was wrong on this point. The AAIB considered his various theories and arguments and, having done so, stood by their findings which were then published in the final report.

In due course, (and in very brief summary), three independent experts (1 pilot, 2 wake vortices) all came to the same conclusion as the AAIB on this point.
The only difference between the three on this point was the (theoretical) difference between the rotorwash never reaching the Cessna at all - or reaching it but being dissipated to such an extent by then that it was so weak it could not have caused the Cessna to go out of control and off the runway.

(2) After the Cessna had careered off the runway:

It became airborne again very briefly as it went off the left side of the runway. Opinions/theories differ about whether it bounced into the air while passing from tarmac onto the grass or the pilot was trying to do a go-around at the time.
The Cessna may have flown through rotorwash at that point, but would have passed through it in a fraction of a second. Bearing in mind that these are press reports of proceedings, it may be the AAIB witness was answering a question about that stage when he gave the answer you've quoted.
If the pilot was attempting a go-around at that point, then it is fortunate he did not succeed. He was heading straight towards the Tower/Fire Unit area at the time and it is highly likely there would have been more fatalities.

If it did not cause the accident....what did?
The Cessna crashed following a loss of control during an attempt to carry out a 'go-around'.
The AAIB report concerning what the pilot did and when makes sad, but interesting, reading. As is so often the case, a series of errors/misjudgments.

Why was the RAF so quick to settle if there was a chance the Sea King did not cause the accident?
The MoD was not quick to settle. Accident in May 2001; settlement in November 2005.
The Claim was for almost £10 million. (The deceased pilot was an exceptionally high earner in his early 40s with 2 children.)
The settlement was £5 million.
I can't say any more for professional reasons.

airborne_artist
You may be right about that the spook aspect. No-one will ever know.
If he was, then whether or not he should have been is a debatable point. St Mawgan has one of the longest and widest runways in the country - it was a diversion airfield for Concorde although never used - and the Sea King was hover taxing (high hover) to the left of the runway a very long way from the threshold.

Quote:

---

AAIB: If the pilot had been concerned about any potential conflict with the Sea King his best option would have been to stop on the runway. By closing the throttle after landing and applying the brakes the aircraft would have stopped some distance before the point at which the Sea King might have entered or crossed the runway. Even from the point where the aircraft was seen to accelerate, there still remained some 200 metres of stopping distance available.

---

Curiously, for an aircraft landing, the throttle friction nut was found to be fully tightened power on.

All losses of life are sad, but this one was in some ways even more tragic because the occupants of the Cessna survived the impact without life-threatening injuries. The pilot got out and began to help his family from the aircraft. A fire started. Fuel from a disconnected fuel hose in the left wing root had contaminated his clothing and caught alight. He sustained substantial burns from which he later sady died. Firefighters had two appliances at the scene in 35 and 40 seconds of the aircraft striking the ground.


AAIB Report - here

So do the family now have to pay the 5 million back?
It clearly wasn't the RAF's fault because the AAIB report says so.
Cusco;)

There are 2 disgraceful elements to this accident - the first is that the MoD settled out of court when they would certainly have won the case. Mr Paton may well have been a high earner but do his wife and children really need £5 million from the taxpayer to help them get on with their lives? How they managed to persuade the MoD to part with the cash could suggest undue influence from well connected parties but that is just my uneducated guess.

The second disgraceful element is that the RAF pilot had his reputation and career demolished, not least by the press who ran one-sided articles quoting the opinions of the family's legal representative, opinions which were disproven comprehensively in court but never rescinded in the press.

Seems an offer was made...accepted...and value transferrred. Clinched deal in my view.

I have seen an Ec 135 come in and do a downwind quickstop, as he rolled on the bank and pulled round to come into wind he shed a vortex from the blades. This vortex touched down on the disused runway and started to pick up debris. It sustained itself for 10 to 15 seconds drifting downwind with this debris. The taxiing aircraft had almost made it to the dispersal before the vortex disappeared. I dare say a Sea King could do similar, but on a larger scale! It may be time for air traffic to bring in approach separation for Rotary too.

I agree with crab....the disgraceful aspect of all of this is the way in which the RAF just gives in so that the matter is forgotten. This is not the first case when out of court settlements have been paid out even though the RAF stood a great chance of winning the court case. I remember the case of a chap who left the RAF and then some years later claimed his bad back was all due to wet winching drills. The RAF followed all procedures; there was no suggestion that he hurt himself during the winching; the so calle dinjury only came to light along time after. The court case was planned yet the RAF offered for an out of court settlement which again ran into millions. Its about time the RAF stood up for itself and gave some comfort to all those who are working in all arenas now, in peacetime ops and at war. A settlement like this does nothing to convince any member of the RAF that they will be backed by their superiors. The pilot of the Sea King has suffered enough and this is just another body blow that will hurt him.

Am I glad I left the RAF 2 years ago?

I think you know the answer.

Interesting thing to say at this time BB.

Are you suggesting it bears on the St Mawgan accident?

:confused:

_________


The original discussion about the payoff is here.

Mod pays £5 million


Heliport

BlindBob, there is no doubt that a helicopter downwash can affect light fixed wing and the heavier the helo the worse it gets. All military helo pilots are constantly reminded of the dangers of downwash because you can score some spectacular own goals with your own troops if you are not careful.

However, in this case, the downwash of the Sea King was shown to have remained completely clear of the Cessna at all times and WAS NOT A FACTOR in the crash. The AAIB investigation was quite clear on the cause of the accident.

Crab,

That is not quite what the AAIB reported....they stated rotorwash could have affected the airplane as it crossed over the vehicular roadway but that it did not cause the aircraft to veer off the runway initially.

This is the issue for MOD employees / servicemen, who are covered by crown indemnity. There is a similar one for hospital doctors who are now also covered by crown indemnity, whereas they used to be covered exclusively by their own defence organisation, the MDU or the MPS. GPs are still exclusively covered by one or other defence organisation and one has a little more faith as a GP that a defence organisation, which is a mutual body, will defend a claim to safeguard one's professional reputation. Quite often they will do so even at greater cost than settling out of court. This will always come second for a government ministry.

Hard to believe it would have cost £5m to defend though, especially given the AAIB report! I'm in the wrong job.

QDM

Just on your last point -

Nobody's said £5m to defend.

Claim was for £10m.
Settled for £5m.

I read somewhere it was a big claim because the pilot who died was earning well over a million a year. Aged 42.

Heli,

I think that QDM means that some organisations consider two main points in their response to litigation.

1. How much it would cost to defend the case V how much they would pay out of court V how much the court may award in they lose

2. The amount at 1. plus the impact on the organisations or the individuals reputation by being seen to 'cave-in' and admit some liability in whatever the incident was (despite the legal jaron). Some public bodies will pay more attention to their own reputation rather than the emplyees. This is very often a point of contention where an organisation pays up and it looks like they think their employee had 'did something wrong'. The employee feels let down (to say the least)

...but then again perhaps he meant something completely different :D

Islandcrazy

Thanks. You're probably right.



QDM
From what I've heard around the bazaars, the Sea King captain was just hung out to dry. Certain RAF top brass couldn't seem to grasp the difference between not complying to the letter with RAF procedures and causing an accident.

There was an article about the other side to this tragedy in the Telegraph at the end of last year.
(Extract)

Grounded pilot is 'forgotten victim' of £5m crash case

The wife of an RAF Sea King helicopter pilot says her husband has become a forgotten victim after the Ministry of Defence paid £5 million to the family of a leading investment banker who was killed in a plane crash.
Penny Binsted said her husband, Flt Lt Peter Binsted, had been unfairly implicated in connection with the crash at St Mawgan RAF base, Cornwall, in June 2001.

Flt Lt Binsted, 52, a pilot of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft for 28 years, has been grounded and told he cannot fly again before he retires in two years time.

Although the MoD settled the case without admitting liability, Mrs Binsted, a researcher at NorthDevonCollege, Barnstaple, said her husband's career and professional reputation had been "rubbished".
"I have no idea why the MoD wasted £5 million of taxpayers money to settle the case instead of defending the good name of the RAF and its airmen. It was not an MoD error."

Extending her sympathy to Mrs Paton, she added: "I know it is very upsetting for her and I know the family have had a horrible time. The inquest is not until next year, so to wait more than four years for that must be grotesque. But there is another side to this. Our family has been in limbo, too. My husband has had his flying career put on hold, and our family life has been blighted. Being confined to a desk compiling statistics has been soul destroying for my husband."

The Paton family, from Highgate, north London, sued the MoD, claiming the crash was caused by a Sea King manoeuvring too close to the runway. The accident occurred when Mr Paton lost control of his aircraft while landing on the runway. The Sea King was near the runway and air taxiing to take off.

In her writ, Mrs Paton said the helicopter "made as if to cross the runway" directly in the Cessna's path. Mr Paton lost stability after the Cessna passed through air disturbed by the helicopter's rotor blades.

However, Mrs Binsted claimed the Air Accident Investigation Branch report had concluded that Mr Paton was responsible for his own accident.
She cited a paragraph, which said "the activity of the Sea King and the loss of control by the pilot of the Cessna were two distinct, and for the most part, unrelated events occurring at the same time".

Mrs Binsted said her husband had been allowed to continue to fly for a year after the accident until an RAF board of inquiry "implicated" him and his crew. She said: "The board wrongly stated many facts; one was that he disobeyed an order from air traffic control to shut down his helicopter".

A second RAF board of inquiry was held earlier this year and had "exonerated" her husband.
Mrs Binsted said her husband and crew had been commended in the second board of inquiry for their part in the rescue of the Paton family. The crash had a detrimental effect on her husband, as he had been unable to work in 2002 on medical grounds, having suffered post traumatic stress disorder.
But despite having gained a full flying medical category in December last year, he had been refused leave to return to a flying post, she added.

The MoD, which had been expected to defend the case, but settled on the eve of the hearing, said the settlement was on "a without liability basis".
The MoD said: "The AAIB report is an independent report, which formed part of the evidence in this case. Therefore we are not going to comment on the report. However, the settlement reached was without prejudice.
"There were two boards of inquiry. The purpose of a BOI is to determine the facts regarding an incident. The findings from any BOI do not apportion blame arising from an incident and thus there is no question of any individual being exonerated as the result of a BOI."


H

What I mean is that crown indemnity means just that: indemnity for the crown. The reputation of the individual helo pilot involved barely appears on the radar screen. He has clearly been hung out to dry and the message from all this to serving personnel is that when the chips are down you will not be backed up at all. You're on your own and it is naive to think otherwise. In fact, I think it goes further and that there is now an undercurrent in this country of the Salem witch trials. As soon as anything goes wrong, someone, the most convenient person, will be blamed, even if this is unjust.

We live in a harsh, unforgiving and unjust society and it is worth remembering this whenever one sticks one's neck out, in whichever sphere.

QDM

Correct me if I am wrong, but I dont think Crown Indemnity exists anymore, does it?

Sasless - since the aircraft was already in the process of crashing as it crossed the vehicular roadway then the downwash was not to blame for the accident - seems clear enough to me.

Crab,

A repeat of my post....

A repeat of your post....

We agree the rotorwash did not cause the accident. The only question I would have is what effect the rotorwash did have on the ultimate outcome of the loss of control. That effect would only be in the severity of the accident possibly, as the accident was well underway when when the rotorwash would have any effect. Read the AAIB report and you will see the part of the Rotorwash study that reports the confirmation of rotorwash being felt at one of the test points where the aircraft was passing over the roadway, probably at a 5-6 foot height in a high angle of attack. The report it would have been like a "gust" of short duration.

There is no way to determine that...shy of having a video of the event to study. That does not exist.

I find it disheartening for the RAF to have treated the SeaKing PIC the way they did. It appears the SK was at a hover and the Cessna found its way into the area around the SK as a result of a loss of control. If that happens to you....why should the helicopter guy get blamed in any way for that. I guess that means in the future, anytime there is an airplane operating on an airfield we should all land, go flat pitch or even shutdown...just in case some poor sod gets crossed up and runs under us.