AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chronus
You aren't listening to me. I posted details of a fatal helicopter crash, after which the pilot went to prison for 18 months. Nothing whatsoever to do with Dave Reid's contribution.
Your assertion/assumption is wrong. Maybe you have an agenda/vested interest?
I have no view whatsoever on Shoreham.
Maybe I will be moderated again. I have no idea what the problem was first time round!
You aren't listening to me. I posted details of a fatal helicopter crash, after which the pilot went to prison for 18 months. Nothing whatsoever to do with Dave Reid's contribution.
Your assertion/assumption is wrong. Maybe you have an agenda/vested interest?
I have no view whatsoever on Shoreham.
Maybe I will be moderated again. I have no idea what the problem was first time round!
Last edited by 4468; 26th Jun 2017 at 23:32.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Posidrive. As far as I'm aware, that is the case in England. Scotland has an additional verdict of "not proven". It doesn't mean you're innocent, but they cannot secure a guilty verdict.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,625
Received 297 Likes
on
165 Posts
Originally Posted by Posidrive
Wasn't there another case involving a hunt saboteur and a microlight.
Last edited by treadigraph; 27th Jun 2017 at 13:44. Reason: Wrongly quoted as Herod!
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: RPVI
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Scottish law there is strictly no distinction between a not guilty and not proven verdict. The reason for this oddity is historic and beyond the scope of this forum.
The "not proven" verdict is however widely mis-understood (in Scotland) by the general public as being that the accused was guilty, but got away with their offence.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, generally it means "not proved beyond reasonable doubt of guilt", although there are other grounds for acquittal. The defendant's status is the same as what it was pre-trial - "presumed innocent". Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a person can be retried for the same crime under certain conditions.
In some jurisdictions (e. Italy), a defendant can be acquitted with a verdict that is equivalent to "innocent", e.g the court found that someone else committed the crime, but there is no equivalent in the UK (including Scotland).
In some jurisdictions (e. Italy), a defendant can be acquitted with a verdict that is equivalent to "innocent", e.g the court found that someone else committed the crime, but there is no equivalent in the UK (including Scotland).
Wrong!
In Scottish law there is strictly no distinction between a not guilty and not proven verdict. The reason for this oddity is historic and beyond the scope of this forum.
The "not proven" verdict is however widely mis-understood (in Scotland) by the general public as being that the accused was guilty, but got away with their offence.
In Scottish law there is strictly no distinction between a not guilty and not proven verdict. The reason for this oddity is historic and beyond the scope of this forum.
The "not proven" verdict is however widely mis-understood (in Scotland) by the general public as being that the accused was guilty, but got away with their offence.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, I should have said England and Wales instead of UK. I was aware that NI law is slightly different and Scottish law very different.
Last edited by Pozidrive; 27th Jun 2017 at 14:05. Reason: spelling/grammar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chronus
You aren't listening to me. I posted details of a fatal helicopter crash, after which the pilot went to prison for 18 months. Nothing whatsoever to do with Dave Reid's contribution.
Your assertion/assumption is wrong. Maybe you have an agenda/vested interest?
I have no view whatsoever on Shoreham.
Maybe I will be moderated again. I have no idea what the problem was first time round!
You aren't listening to me. I posted details of a fatal helicopter crash, after which the pilot went to prison for 18 months. Nothing whatsoever to do with Dave Reid's contribution.
Your assertion/assumption is wrong. Maybe you have an agenda/vested interest?
I have no view whatsoever on Shoreham.
Maybe I will be moderated again. I have no idea what the problem was first time round!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries.
Just to be totally clear. I met the pilot in the helicopter accident I referred to. Shortly before his accident. Coincidentally, I also know the Shoreham pilot. I am absolutely not wishing to connect the two incidents in any way.
I have no doubt whatsoever, I am not informing the CPS of anything they were otherwise unaware of!
Just to be totally clear. I met the pilot in the helicopter accident I referred to. Shortly before his accident. Coincidentally, I also know the Shoreham pilot. I am absolutely not wishing to connect the two incidents in any way.
I have no doubt whatsoever, I am not informing the CPS of anything they were otherwise unaware of!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The piece that matters is :
"This action is a result of the CAA concluding there were no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident. This is based on our own extensive review and the AAIB’s final accident report."
Fairly conclusive that there was nothing wrong with the machine and all its equipment.
"This action is a result of the CAA concluding there were no airworthiness issues relating to the Hawker Hunter aircraft that caused or contributed to the accident. This is based on our own extensive review and the AAIB’s final accident report."
Fairly conclusive that there was nothing wrong with the machine and all its equipment.
Still needs to be put in the context of an aircraft with no FDR so no proof but old fashioned investigation gives the best possible opinion within the constaints as the report says , just to give the benefit of doubt. Be interesting after reading the report if there will be any airworthy Hunters to fly excepting the ones still operating under the military system from Scampton. Will the manufacturer supply seat cartridges now ? The engine inspection issues mean the chances of seeing an aircraft powered by a 100 series Avon is pretty remote.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts