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.

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

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'?

I'll leave it to others who have the necessary legal qualifications to comment further on this.:sad:

I am rendered speechless.

Yes, 4 posts up.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...NR%2011-11.pdf

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.

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.

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

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.

One of the many 'definitions' of a jury, depending where you look, is actually quite different to yours

So, anyone who is selected and actually does jury duty are just idiots who aren't able to avoid it?

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.

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.

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

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 :confused:

I'd be interested in FlyingLawyer's views..

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

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."

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

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

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.

SASless - I hear you, but AJ had a lot of time in the province and could be expected to know where those mountains were, with or without navigation systems. We ought to get the public away from this idea that just because there's a machine in the cockpit you have to obey it. How many times have I had surveyors in the back "navigating" with a GPS where good map reading has told me they were way out.

it would be a good argument with a counsel, that's for sure. :)

As for freelancers, they don't have the "master and servant" protection that an employee would have, such as it is in modern times. Public liability insurance would be a good step, as would making yourself into a limited company.

Phil

Side Comment:

As a (related) side comment and following SAS's 'word to the wise' this episode with AJ highlights one of the potential and unique 'pressures' of corporate flying.

Corporate drivers (for the most part) get ribbed for what many perceive as earning an 'easy buck' and in some cases this is indeed so. Everything has its place though and I've always believed that corporate assignments are ideal as a pre-retirement placement in which the client benefits from the driver's experience and the driver gets to enjoy what is usually a less stressful job.

There are however, as mentioned above, some unique pressures which apply to corporate flying and 'persuasion from above' is a bigger challenge than many at first recognise. It echoes what was said earlier about knowing when and being able to .. say no.

In the corporate plank world there was an epic accident in 2001 which strikingly highlighted this challenge.

N303GA was an Avjet-owned GIII which ploughed into the ground just short of the theashold at Aspen in Colorado killing all aboard. 'Pressure' from the client is considered by many to have been a dominant contributing factor to the crash.

For those with the time, a copy of the Accident Report may be found here and makes, as these things always do, for depressing reading.

It is not at all surprising that Mrs Stisted is claiming for her loss as a result of this accident - it is quite normal for any party to do so as a result of an accident of any type, and she will of course be doing so with legal advice.

What is interesting is why she is claiming against the estate of the pilot. I would have expected the aircraft insurance to include adequate public liability cover for the passengers carried. So perhaps either the insurance company are declining to pay out for some reason, or the level of PL cover is insufficient to meet the claim.

The most important thing is that particularly freelance pilots should be very clear who is going to meet any claim in the event of an accident when they are flying an aircraft. Whenever there is loss, there is very likely to be a claim, and given the % of aircraft accidents that are caused by pilot error it is no surprise that the pilot is likely to be sued for negligence. Make sure the insurance of any aircraft you fly covers you for any public liability claims. If it doesn't, maybe you can get your own PL cover. But if no insurance covers you, expect your estate to get sued in the event of an accident.

And finally let's not forget that the most important reason to make sure all documents and legislation is complied with, is that insurance may well be invalidated if it is not!

I'm no expert however, so hopefully we can see some comments from Flying Lawyer here. Assuming he's not involved.

Paco.....whenever these kinds of things happen we all ask ourselves "What Happened?" when we really mean "Could that be me one day?". We see very experienced, well qualified friends, come to a sad end and it reminds us of our own vulnerability.

If this legal proceeding does continue....there shall be some interesting argument in Court. Hopefully, someone will be able to report them to us as it would be very educational reading. I have been involved in similar tribunals as a witness and understand only too well how Counsel can twist words, spin facts, and manipulate data to their advantage.....and make what they are saying sound plausible to the Jury who most times are thick as two short planks when it comes to the matters being discussed. That is where "perception" trumps "fact"....and unless the Judge keeps a close rein on the hearing.....bad Jury decisions can occur.

Sobering and sad thought that a bereaved family could be forced to give up their home and worldly wealth because of a human error over something in which they took no part or had no personal responsibility for.

Absolutely the ****s.....especially when it is the Law!

UK Press Association, 22nd February 2012

The Press Association: Helicopter tragedy 'a mystery'

Old Chart Theory

Helicopter pilot may have seen old map - UTV Live News

~ ~ ~

A lot of rubbish starting to be spouted now and one can expect even more (as mentioned) if this goes to trial.

The only concern should be that of establishing, as accurately as possible, the cause of the crash and its possible future prevention. As for the rest - those seeking recourse need to ask themselves some solid 'life questions'.

A lot of rubbish indeed - but all fodder for the prosecuting counsel to present to an ignorant jury... :(

The incapacitation theory would explain an awful lot, particularly as the AP was engaged and he hadn't changed HDG/ALT for some 10-12nm. The 2 pax in the rear could easily have been completely oblivious to the pilot slumped in his seat. Or worse still, completely aware.

Hi this is Angie's brother, AJ's brother in law. I was at the Coroners Inquest in Belfast which ran for four days with the Jury's narrative verdict on the fifth day. The inquest went into minute detail on all aspects of the accident culminating with a presentation by the AAIB and a summing up by the Coroner. For friends of AJ you might like to know that the Coroner described AJ as "no ordinary pilot but an exceptional pilot", he also said "Captain Smith was highly respected by his colleagues and peers which I consider to be the gold standard by which any professional achievement can be measured". I appreciate that for readers of this blog it is interesting to speculate about what may have happened but the truth is we will never really know. The conclusion reached by the experts, the AAIB, was that some kind of "incapacitation was likely" - knowing AJ and the facts surrounding the case I am of the same opinion. The purpose of the AAIB is to improve aviation safety by determining causes of air accidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence. The AAIB didn't make any safety recommendations which means in their expert opinion, nothing about the flight planning , preparation or anything else could have been changed to avoid a recurrence. There has also been a lot of speculation sparked by the Express article. Don't worry Angie is not paying anyone £300,000 and just because claims are made it doesn't make them true or accurate.

Excellent post kitsch ...:D I do hope that any pending legals do not cause your family too much grief. It sounds like you're pretty grounded and strong.

Cheers

Whirls

Ditto to Whirls post Kitsch. Thinking of Angie and family.

Nice to hear kitsch. I didn't know AJ personally but as ex AAC I certainly knew of him. :ok:

I'm an ex Navy pilot, I currently teach RAF pilots and I know Paul Hannant from my time in police aviation. Firstly an inordinate number of pilots across tri service knew AJ. Every single one of them have respect for his professionalism - in my experience this is unique. The bloke was no fool.

What is gathering pace, is the need for current operators (pilots), especially freelance, to acclimatise to the fact that part of them now has to become a lawyer, so they can competently negotiate the minefield that is litigation.
Even the military have reacted (albeit late) by adopting MAA.
Slowly but surely the days of being a pure aviator, are over. Most modern commercial pilots have to be a mixture of:
Admin / accountant / lawyer...to survive.

Paco touches on an example about the a/c nav system.

It is not that there is legislation controlling the use of a nav system, perse; it is the fact that if prosecuting third party can identify a trait that the pilot was 'derelict in their duty' by not utilising said system properly, they will. They will build a picture of unprofessional behaviour which they hope will lead to the balance of probability that the pilots actions contributed to the accident and hence liability exists.

Where has all the fun gone these days.
The ONLY good news to come from this is that AJ died doing what he loved doing. RIP buddy.

And, having seen the wreckage several times, there may be some consolation in knowing that nobody on board would have known what happened.

There is certainly room for a European asociation to serve freelance drivers to which one might contribute a moderate annual fee in return for being professionally represented in the event of litigation (especially relevant with certain clients).

TC, you are not alone, several feel this way. The 'fun' in flying (or perhaps one could call it the sense of adventure or freedom) has gone the way of many things in Europe .. into the quagmire which is centralisation, bureaucracy and external control.

As you know, successive generations find it easier to accept that which we may question as they will have been raised with these 'restrictions' largely in place. For them to aspire to the role of a well-coordinated IT specialist versed in administration, law and accounting while conducting perpetual risk assessments, reviewing new policies and flying .. will be quite normal I am sure.

It is, as always, hardest for those who recall a time when things were, how can one describe it, less complicated!

Ronaldus Magnus (Ronald Reagan to the unknowing and Liberal Left) said "Freedom is just one generation from extinction.". In time....shy of a new Revolution....there shall be no personal freedom.

I enjoy many of SAS's post and now .. SAS the philosopher .. excellent!

Sadly, what he writes is profoundly true.

There was a British author Eric Blair (grandfather to Tony Blair ;)) who predicted most of what is in evidence today.

What a pity his Grandson didn't read it.

Ha ha ha ... Since when was Tony Blair related to George Orwell :8 I'd just hate to believe that the more gullible on here might believe you. :p

Cheers

Whirls

Sensible advice to fellow helicopter pilots
 

Helinut has it right. The current environment in which we fly helicopters is, for all sorts of reasons, quite challenging.

When it comes to looking after yourself, one essential thing to do is to ensure that you are insured when you fly someone else's machine.

It is common for the so called deductible/excess/uninsured amount just for hull claims on a £1m machine to be £50k. I have seen it as high as 10% of the hull value. That can be a difficult conversation with the owner/operator after the fact.

When it comes to cover for passengers and third parties (in the air or on the ground), then make sure you as pilot are insured under the owner/operator policy - and that you are satisfied it is for enough cover. For a single/twin turbine (4/5 seats) with an AOC, normal cover in the UK/EU is usually for a policy around the £7.5-£10m mark.

As pilots, you should not be having to pay any additional premium, as it is normal practice that if the owner/operator approves you to fly the machine, then you are automatically covered to do so. If in doubt, then check the Tech Log for the Insurance Certificate next time.

So, the daily worrying problem is the hull excess in the event of e.g a hard landing, which few pilots can afford to fund themselves, and to which there is no obvious solution.

The insurance market in the UK for helicopters is a duopoly, where the many do not pay for the few.