AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015

[mothminor]

If this pilot was an experienced display pilot, and he missed the entry gate and the top gate, and skewed off the display line, and having missed both gates, did not take evasive action, then he must have become mentally incapacitated in some way? By which I mean befuddled or confused rather than becoming fully unconscious.

If this was the case, did this also apply to his incident in the JP at Southport?

[Lemain]

Wally Witless --

if they are going to play the ''temporarily incapacitated'' card as his defence, it's gonna be very handy for him to start remembering some stuff

there are some very angry people in this part of world who won't give him that much benefit of the doubt I'm afraid

There is no 'defence' needed until there is an accusation (and a formal charge). Is there an accusation apart from being PIC at the time of the crash? If so, what is the accusation and who is making it?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Lemain

There is no 'defence' needed until there is an accusation (and a formal charge).

Nor even then.

If there were to be a prosecution, which would ultimately be up the the police and CPS, they would have to convince a jury of his guilt (of whatever charges are laid).

It's not up to a defendant to prove his/her innocence.

[Super VC-10]

I'm getting the impression that Wally Witless is closely related to a victim. Their contributions here are not going to achieve or change anything. As others have said, any prosecution is down to the CPS. Should there be a prosecution, it does not necessarily mean that there will be a conviction. Once a prosecution has either been ruled out or taken place, then the inquest can conclude.

[aox]

Originally Posted by WallyWitless

if they are going to play the ''temporarily incapacitated'' card as his defence, it's gonna be very handy for him to start remembering some stuff

Apart from the above post already pointing out there is as yet no accusation, if that eventually does happen, it won't be up to you or any other interested parties to make assumptions or prior judgements or misstatements about what the defence might be.

What evidence do you have about alleged incapacity, or about a defence rightly or wrongly based on it?

None at all, I would suggest.

A couple of people above have quoted remarks from a doctor interviewing the pilot shortly afterwards. It would be fair to judge that as inconclusive.

If someone is injured or ill, they might be asked questions or tests to establish their comprehension of their situation or how injured they are - what is your name, what time of day is it, do you know where you are, please look at my fingertip and follow it with your eyes as I move it, and so on.

Asking someone if they are or were feeling unwell, and they are in shock and possibly not paying full attention and don't quite realise the tense involved in the question, isn't proof of anything, and doesn't seem to have been taken by the AAIB as such.

We are told the pilot has been interviewed by the police. He may well be again in future. If testimony from those interviews is produced as evidence in court (for example, an answer to a question were you feeling unwell before the flight), then the court will be in a position to decide on that evidence.

Until then, and it may never happen, your declaration or assumption that the defence might rely on incapacity has no basis in fact.

[WallyWitless]

The idea of temporary incapacity was being offered here as a reason for the accident happening. There is (at the moment) only the weakest possible circumstantial evidence to support that - which is that the pilot was making consecutive mistakes, I believe that was said, sorry but that is pretty weak stuff. It could be right but it's still pretty weak theorizing if not pure speculation.

I had previously tried to say why 2 of those mistakes may not be pilot error at all really or should have downgraded import. The lack of thrust during the climb isn't the fault of the pilot. Not rolling out at the top is somewhat understandable especially if that isn't even a formal training requirement - that's really not going to help is it & again isn't imo directly 'the fault' of the pilot if that is the lax aviation display 'culture' existing at the time. (I'm just going off the report there & do not mean that people were not adhering to regulations or not doing their best to keep everyone safe)

I just wanted to be seeing a fair discussion which the first half of this thread didn't seem to be to me. I am seeing a more even handed conversation now. But not here to cause trouble, I am just interested. I apologize for the tone of my previous post & will shut up now - you are welcome to think & may be right to suggest that this is a good idea.

[Bravo Alpha One]

Quite apart from what I said at #168, I should imagine it unlikely in the extreme that anyone would be fully rational and feeling well having just been ejected* through a mass of blazing debris at god-knows-what speed as one's aeroplane fell apart, no matter what had happened prior to impact.
In fact, it must be considered almost miraculous that the guy survived at all.
* Yes, I did read that he declined to use the MB escape system, but he was ejected to the extent that he left the aircraft.

[Homsap]

Aox...

You make some good points and to add the case of the AH fan club is losing credibility.

The problem is that the CPS/Police might take the approach that prosecution my not be in the public interest, compounded with the fact that the CPS/Police might think AH has suffered enough. Criminal law sometimes works that way, but oddly the Crown Court would probably be kinder to him, based on the fact it would be decided by a jury on the 'without reasonable doubt' basis.

However a civil case would be based on the 'balance of probabilities' in which I think AH would be slautered financially.

The fact it that AH may have claimed he felt ill before, as someone stated, knowning that you were about to die, but perhaps it was an untruthfull statement to cover himself, in the same way AH claimed the entry was at 500ft, not that he can remember and evidence suggests otherwise. Also a bit odd that previous displays were reviewed on the Hunter, yet not the JP incident at Southport.

Finally, in respect of misreadining of instruments, the report states Class One Medical, but no references to restrictions in respect of corrective vision, as possibly, it is unlikely at the age of 51, corrective vision might be an issue, as it was in a Grob 115/Glider mid air acccident, which stated from memory that while there was a restriction in repect of corrective vision in respect of P1, yet glasses/or contacts were recovered from the accident. Did AH require glases, was he wearing them?

[Heathrow Harry]

Biscuit wrote:-

"That the pilot did not abandon the manoeuvre seems to be either an indication of gross misjudgment of the physical situation or an indication of over confidence or 'press-on-itis' - under the pressure of being on display. Not the first of us to fall foul of these,"

brings to mind the Phenom crash at 'Bushe .... in that case the pilot MUST have realised he was far too fast and long but he still tried to land............

We all get fixated sometimes

[Heathrow Harry]

"Their contributions here are not going to achieve or change anything."

ever heard of the Great British Press? If they take it up the CPS will have charges out in an hour

[wiltshireman]

The simple fact is that he was too heavy with fuel having transited low level from North Weald and had no vertical energy. Just appalling and has put the vintage jet display circuit in a difficult position.

[Lemain]

Dave Reid --

If there were to be a prosecution, which would ultimately be up the the police and CPS, they would have to convince a jury of his guilt (of whatever charges are laid).

It's not up to a defendant to prove his/her innocence.

The report isn't conclusive hence the discussion here. The pilot is a highly experienced and respected military and commercial pilot, with a licence to fly type, and a current medical. There does not appear to be any single reason why this happened; or the report would have highlighted it.

Yet this tragedy happened and killed eleven people. That resulted in widows, orphans, businesses who'd lost key staff, cost of funerals, homes repossessed, loans unpaid,... Massive costs both human and financial. Just as we all cover ourselves for our 'third party' damage to others with our home and motor insurance it is perfectly proper for those involved in displays to carry appropriate cover. No doubt they are covered but as we all know our insurers insist that we do not admit liability. If we do, we may forfeit cover. So it is unrealistic to expect the parties involved in the tragedy to make public statements.

I don't see this as a police/CPS matter but rather some kind of class action by those who have lost so much. I'm sure everyone here would hope that insurers or others have already dug deep into their pockets to help mitigate the financial consequences to those whose lives have been shattered. It'll end up in court, blame will be apportioned by lawyers and monies paid out.

The only winners are the lawyers.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Lemain

I don't see this as a police/CPS matter

Rightly or wrongly, the police obviously beg to differ:

Sussex Police to review the Air Accident Investigation Branch's report into the Shoreham air crash

It may be just a CYA exercise, but these things tend to take on a life of their own.

[langleybaston]

Sussex Police has received the final report from the Air Accident Investigation Branch into the Shoreham air crash and will begin looking at the report in detail with our independent experts.

One wonders who the independent experts are ...... more expert than AIIB ........ not an easy to find trawl is it?

[Lemain]

Dave Reid -- The Coroner will almost certainly have asked the police to investigate whether any crime was committed. The Coroner has to determine whether the killing was unlawful, accidental, etc. Indeed I think the Coroner always involves the police?

[Dutystude]

This is so sad. Normally the only fatality in these occurrences is the pilot and we, the aviation family, no matter what the ins-and-outs, say "unlucky Mate, God Bless"

That AH survived changes nothing. It was an error of judgement. We do not have to live with it: AH does!

[Heathrow Harry]

"One wonders who the independent experts are ."

lawyers & people who can give an opinion on if there is a case that can stand up in court etc etc

Unfortuantely a Court case could turn VERY nasty indeed -worse if it is a private prosecution - then you'd have 11 sets of lawyers asking questions

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Lemain

Dave Reid -- The Coroner will almost certainly have asked the police to investigate whether any crime was committed. The Coroner has to determine whether the killing was unlawful, accidental, etc. Indeed I think the Coroner always involves the police?

Quite so.

My understanding is that Sussex police are investigating the possible case for prosecution on charges of manslaughter and/or breach of the ANO (2009) Section 138: "Endangering safety of any person or property: A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property."

[airpolice]

Queuing traffic or not.

I started this thread to discuss the AAIB Report, not to second guess it or come to any conclusion about blame.

My recollection of reports at the time is that the traffic lights were holding the cars that were hit.


From page 117 of the report. Section 1.18.7.2

The organisers of the 2015 Shoreham Airshow had identified that the junction of the A27 was a popular location from which to view the display. The AAIB was informed that in previous years several hundred people had been observed at the road junction between the A27, Shoreham Bypass, and the Old Shoreham Road, and in the grounds of a nearby, now closed, public house. The display organisers and the local emergency services had been concerned about the road traffic risk to these crowds and the display organisers had taken steps to minimise the number of people in this area.

The ground operations risk assessment identified the hazard as, ‘Fast moving trunk road. 70 mph dual carriageway Traffic lights and queuing traffic.’ and
proposed the action as ‘Traffic management plan in place. No right turns. Traffic Lights off and 40 mph limit in place.’

Traffic Lights off



The ground operations risk assessment.... proposed the action ...Traffic Lights off. And yet......

The manoeuvre was continued and the aircraft struck the ground on the northern side of the westbound carriageway of the A27 close to the central reservation with a ground track at a slight angle to the direction of the road. When it struck the ground it broke into four main sections. Fuel and fuel vapour released from the fuel tanks ignited. In its path were vehicles that were stationary at, or in the vicinity of, the traffic lights at the junction
with the Old Shoreham Road, and pedestrians standing by the junction.

In its path were vehicles that were stationary at, or in the vicinity of, the traffic lights

Leaving aside why the Hunter came down there, why were the traffic lights at red when that was already identified as a threat?

This is not hindsight, people had discussed this before the show.

[mothminor]

airpolice.


The risk identified was that fast moving traffic may injure spectators, not that a pilot causing an aircraft to crash onto the road may injure car drivers.