G0OULI

Whilst this aircraft was contracted to the police, it was operated by a commercial operator who provided its' pilot.

Compensation will be a matter for that operator and their insurance company unless it can be established that some action by the Police was the cause of the event - unlikely it would seem.

So the overburdened taxpayer is off the hook on this one - sorry to ruin your most creative conspiracy theory. (And in the case of Police units that do / did operate their own aircraft they were NOT self insured - they were the subject of specific insurance policies as required by legislation).

OH

Looks like Scotland wants to get some big compensation from an English company. In this respect the delay from the AAIB might be a bit political and perhaps they try to find evidence to reduce compensation

"Scotland" as in the entire nation ? Sweeping statement is it not. Care to elucidate ?

El G .

OvertHawk

I am convinced that the AAIB report will be an unbiased summary of the facts established and free from political interference, other than delay in publishing the final report.

There is an inevitable political aspect to this enquiry, no matter what the eventual findings. Depending on the amount of any compensation eventually awarded, a private company or insurer could seek protection in bankruptcy, which is where the taxpayer will end up footing the bill. No conspiracy required.

There are obvious implications for NPAS in respect of reducing the potential for future accidents while overflying populated areas and perhaps the deployment of unmanned drones in support of police operations. So maybe another tranche of major investment needed to improve safety levels? That certainly isn't covered in the current NPAS budget.

Well if Scotland's first minister is asking to spool up for compensation claims..
Scots tend to say "Scotland" when talking about individual aspects.
It will be a very complicated case with many different aspects, claims, parties and interests. Is Police Scotland asking for compensation from the service provider, or the other way round? Has Police Scotland some general responsibility in this case? Any little minor faults within the aircraft and its system, which could relate to the accident?

Do you know anything about the company involved? Judging by your unsubstantiated comments and conspiracy theories, I'm guessing not.

Bond Air Services is the largest provider of Air Ambulance services in the country. They are now owned by Babcock International Group, a FTSE 100 listed company with a market cap of approximately £5bn. Neither company is going to be filing for bankruptcy over this. :hmm:

Bravo73

It doesn't matter who provides the service, whether by PFI or direct funding. Any compensation awarded or increased safety regulations and costs will need to be recouped by increasing the cost of new contracts. The taxpayer still ultimately ends up footing the bill. Still not a conspiracy theory, just sound business management.

I've read the First Ministers remarks in the BBC report referred to above and I can't find the word "compensation" anywhere.

quite right, from the letter:

"That risks delay in any decision about criminal proceedings and the holding of a Fatal Accident Inquiry which I am sure you will agree is an unsatisfactory position."

Surely nothing to do with compensation?
There is an other aspect too. People, inclusive victims, want to get over it and want to move on. It is frustrating for them if the report is delayed for unknown reasons.

Really?
Access to a company ops manual or the old 612, more specifically in detail part 2, may offer a differing view. (I don't know which OM was in use at the time)

Just another piece of this massive jigsaw.

You are just demonstrating your ignorance again. This has got nothing to do with PFI.

I note you have left large gaps between your lines or perhaps its just that I can't read between them in the same way you must be doing?

Vendee,

Good hint, perhaps I should make the gaps even larger ..


Albeit no guarantee they will be filled in with evidence in black on white.
Regarding previous information, I understood the AAIB and the aircraft manufacturer tried to read out information stored in electronic components. Have not heard the outcome yet. Perhaps the sequence of fuel pump usage can be recovered in some way or the other (logged amp figures?) which could give a clearer picture of the switch settings during the flight. Have the switches been shifted in relation to what was indicated on the panel? Maybe an (earlier) panel fault could have caused some wrong understanding of the situation and fuel management. Some outcome could change the set up of the :yuk: legal battle.

Of course, we are all assuming it was the pilot that switched the prime pumps on, but what if .....

Sky that would of course be entirely relevant but for the fact Nicola Sturgeon's letter was dated December 3rd. [to be fair to you that isn't reflected in the BBC story but it is in the Herald Scotland story of the same here

Perhaps therefore it was her letter that encouraged the meeting on Dec 11th?? Who knows.

Come on, provocative line, actually yes maybe. Got to say I don't think the AAIB have been timely at all over the recent fatal helicopter accidents. You might have a different view and if you do then fine, but at least say it and why.

As has been said elsewhere companies that operate these machines are often part of multi billion dollar corporations. If (for example) funding was an issue at the AAIB then given investigators (if you take the recent advert in Flight international for an investigator as and example) are a £70k-ish resource it becomes hard to understand how that kind of funding can not be raised.

If of course we even think that might / could be of issue.

I personally find it difficult to understand how it can take so long to come to a reasonable conclusion in the current timeframe and if it does why the issues can not be communicated effectively.

Its just a view however and in the grand scheme of whats happened here I'm not sure where the term "keep your powder dry and wait for the report" fits. Whatever the outcome I'm not sure it matters who is right first and it certainly isn't the motivation of my postings. This is an internet forum.....people have differing views... some of them utter ****e... that cant be a surprise.

Of course getting the handbags out over EC135 fuel pumps isn't new...starting post 80 here over 10 years ago

The Scottish Review said today in a long piece about the Clutha crash that it has asked the AAIB when the preliminary report, promised to be out within weeks of November 2014, 'in early 2015', was going to be available, and what had happened to it.

The AAIB said in reply "For your information AAIB is expecting to publish the final report in the middle of 2015", and nothing else.

So - no preliminary.

Its now probably more a case of waiting for a suitable other ultra newsworthy occurrence, under cover of which to launch this critical report.

I am sure that it will be nothing to do with a Govt that a few months previous to the accident combined all Scottish forces into one, and thereafter expected a resource that previously covered a single force now covered a whole country! Nothing to do with a mission that pushed the average relatively short mission duration to beyond the capability of the A/C

No nothing at all similar to NPAS style of operations previously undertaken by plus or minus 30 helicopters soon to be undertaken by about 15!

TF

SLF

What do you mean by "no preliminary"?

Quite - the actual AAIB response was regarding the draft final report, a preliminary report has been published. Does anybody seriously think a draft report should be put into the public domain? :ugh::ugh:

I think that is a wholly unwarranted slur on the integrity of the AAIB. I further think you should consider withdrawing it.