AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree absolutely. However do you just put the deaths of eleven innocent people down to a statement something like: Accidents happen it was just their bad luck to be there when it happened. Somehow I cannot believe that that will be the verdict of the Coroner.
I for one accept that there may be many causes and contributory causes of this "accident" and it will be the duty of the Coroner to establish exactly what happened, how and when. The AAIB report has already identified a number of key factors and no doubt the Coroner will want to explore these fully.
In the mean time I guess the CPS will be liaising with the Police in order to establish if there is a valid criminal case to answer.
I for one accept that there may be many causes and contributory causes of this "accident" and it will be the duty of the Coroner to establish exactly what happened, how and when. The AAIB report has already identified a number of key factors and no doubt the Coroner will want to explore these fully.
In the mean time I guess the CPS will be liaising with the Police in order to establish if there is a valid criminal case to answer.
Well, actually, yes, it was indeed their tragic bad luck that the aircraft hit the A27 as it did. If it had either undershot or overshot the road at that point, probably only the pilot would have been killed: still a tragedy, but (sadly) like many other air show crashes. Perhaps there was only about a couple of hundred metres in it, between one potential outcome and the other. If the pilot had been the only casualty, the AAIB would have investigated just the same, and hopefully lessons would have been learned just the same, but there wouldn't have been anything like the same ongoing ballyhoo, and probably not a 48-page thread here.
No, nor can I. Some things cannot be said.
Somehow I cannot believe that that will be the verdict of the Coroner.
Last edited by OldLurker; 7th Nov 2017 at 22:52. Reason: typo
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: MAN
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was BALPA that coordinated the best legal minds and financial power of its members to defend the core principles & data in the accident investigation process. The alternative would be Pilots & their families, etc. providing a 'no comment' interview to the AAiB - it was a landmark ruling with international impact
The legal and practical assistance provided by BALPA to its full members is unparalleled anywhere else in Aviation. This extends to Pilot injuries & accidents, etc. around the world whilst on duty. In terms of experience and legal fire power in a world that wants to find the nearest 'guilty party' its second to none.
Shoreham IMO was a complete failure of the CAAs & UK obsession with light touch regulation. People & organisations don't do what you don't check.
The legal and practical assistance provided by BALPA to its full members is unparalleled anywhere else in Aviation. This extends to Pilot injuries & accidents, etc. around the world whilst on duty. In terms of experience and legal fire power in a world that wants to find the nearest 'guilty party' its second to none.
Shoreham IMO was a complete failure of the CAAs & UK obsession with light touch regulation. People & organisations don't do what you don't check.
Folks,
Dogma is correct, and the intent of Annex 13 is clear.
The BALPA intervention as an interested part was entirely proper, I would have expected no less.
The Hunter pilot on the day had no criminal intent, no "mens rea", the guilty mind, effectively a prerequisite for criminal charges. If he made a mistake, it certainly would not have been intentional, who hasn't made a mistake flying, at some time or other.
Whether we like it or not, the "default" position of police is "crime and punishment", not aviation accident prevention, the intent of Annex 13 and complimentary British and EC law in aviation.
I can think of only one loss of an aircraft at an airshow in the UK where I would agree that there were strong suggestions of reckless and negligent behavior, that was the A-26 at Biggin Hill in the 1960s.
There was one epic case in NZ, included in the precedents in this UK High Court case, the NZ police were hell bent on locking up the tec. crew and throwing away the key, after the accident that occurred during the handling of a gear problem.
Even a member of Qantas senior management appeared as a witness for the defence, such was the Qantas view of the importance of keeping accident investigation data away from criminal or civil actions.
Had the NZ police won their court action, it would have had a chilling result for any aviation accident investigation in NZ, who is going to give evidence that is going to find them in the pokey.
In Australia, despite lip service to Annex 13, and a piece of legislation that apparently enacts Annex 13 data protection as Australian law, ATSB and CASA are all too cosy, pilots are very reluctant to say anything other than the absolute "name, rank and serial number" minimum to investigators, because of the propensity for such information to "leak" and "inform" CASA parallel investigations.
I would point out that at least some of those killed or injured were parked in an area with temporary parking restrictions, erected just for the duration of the airshow. Hindsight is always 20/20 perfect vision, pity the parking restrictions were not thoroughly enforced.
Dogma is correct, and the intent of Annex 13 is clear.
The BALPA intervention as an interested part was entirely proper, I would have expected no less.
The Hunter pilot on the day had no criminal intent, no "mens rea", the guilty mind, effectively a prerequisite for criminal charges. If he made a mistake, it certainly would not have been intentional, who hasn't made a mistake flying, at some time or other.
Whether we like it or not, the "default" position of police is "crime and punishment", not aviation accident prevention, the intent of Annex 13 and complimentary British and EC law in aviation.
I can think of only one loss of an aircraft at an airshow in the UK where I would agree that there were strong suggestions of reckless and negligent behavior, that was the A-26 at Biggin Hill in the 1960s.
There was one epic case in NZ, included in the precedents in this UK High Court case, the NZ police were hell bent on locking up the tec. crew and throwing away the key, after the accident that occurred during the handling of a gear problem.
Even a member of Qantas senior management appeared as a witness for the defence, such was the Qantas view of the importance of keeping accident investigation data away from criminal or civil actions.
Had the NZ police won their court action, it would have had a chilling result for any aviation accident investigation in NZ, who is going to give evidence that is going to find them in the pokey.
In Australia, despite lip service to Annex 13, and a piece of legislation that apparently enacts Annex 13 data protection as Australian law, ATSB and CASA are all too cosy, pilots are very reluctant to say anything other than the absolute "name, rank and serial number" minimum to investigators, because of the propensity for such information to "leak" and "inform" CASA parallel investigations.
I would point out that at least some of those killed or injured were parked in an area with temporary parking restrictions, erected just for the duration of the airshow. Hindsight is always 20/20 perfect vision, pity the parking restrictions were not thoroughly enforced.
When the AAIB, using their expertise, discover that a pilot was at fault, or indeed, was not at fault, why should that be hidden from the police officers investigating an incident?
The Police have a completely different brief. As far as they are concerned, if there's a death, there's a crime to be investigated. For example, they no longer use the tern 'road traffic accident', preferring instead 'road traffic collision' as the word accident infers that no-one is to blame.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the organisers of the display may be considered to be low hanging fruit.
Shoreham Airshow crash: Pilot may have thought he was flying a different aircraft, investigators suggest
But the 17-month-long AAIB inquiry also blamed organisers, and stressed the toll of the crash was only so devastating because of a lack of safety preparations to protect bystanders.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Hunter pilot on the day had no criminal intent, no "mens rea", the guilty mind, effectively a prerequisite for criminal charges. If he made a mistake, it certainly would not have been intentional, who hasn't made a mistake flying, at some time or other. "
Criminal Intent is not necessary for a charge of manslaughter - it's the "reasonable care " that is important.... as in cases when Companies are charged due to deaths and injuries in the workplace
Criminal Intent is not necessary for a charge of manslaughter - it's the "reasonable care " that is important.... as in cases when Companies are charged due to deaths and injuries in the workplace
Moderator
stressed the toll of the crash was only so devastating because of a lack of safety preparations to protect bystanders.
Are "bystanders" airshow enthusiasts, who attended the airshow? Or, more broadly, anyone on the ground?
For those thinking about the role of the West Sussex Police, the AAIB and the local Coroner, it is worth reading what the judges actually said. The first quote relates to AAIB witness statements, the second to Coroners.
“In my view it is almost inconceivable that statements made to the AAIB could properly be the subject of an order for disclosure when the appropriate balancing exercise is done by this Court. This is for two main reasons.
First, there would be a serious and obvious "chilling effect" which would tend to deter people from answering questions by the AAIB with the candour which is necessary when accidents of this sort have to be investigated by it. This would seriously hamper future accident investigations and the protection of public safety by the learning of lessons which may help to prevent similar accidents. As is clear from the text cited earlier from Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, the EU Regulation and the 1996 Regulations, this would be contrary to one of the fundamental purposes of the regime in this area, which is carefully designed to encourage candour in the investigation of air accidents in order to learn lessons and prevent accidents in the future.
Secondly, it would be unfair to require such disclosure. This is because the powers of the AAIB, unlike the ordinary police, are such as to permit the compulsion of answers to questions: see Regulation 9 of the 1996 Regulations. Further, so far as I could discern from the hearing before this Court, there is no clear practice, to say the least, of giving a caution to the person interviewed. This is hardly surprising, since the purpose of such an interview is to obtain the fullest possible information in an accident investigation. This contrasts markedly with the purpose of a police interview, which is to elicit evidence which may be capable of being used at a subsequent criminal trial.”
And:
“In the absence of credible evidence that the investigation into an accident is incomplete, flawed or deficient, a Coroner conducting an inquest into a death which occurred in an aircraft accident, should not consider it necessary to investigate again the matters covered or to be covered by the independent investigation of the AAIB. […] [T]he findings and conclusions should not be reopened.”
If you want to read the judgments in full you can find them here: Sussex Police v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor [2016] EWHC 2280 (QB) (28 September 2016)
The Secretary of State, R (on the application of) v HM Senior Coroner for Norfolk & Anor [2016] EWHC 2279 (Admin) (28 September 2016)
“In my view it is almost inconceivable that statements made to the AAIB could properly be the subject of an order for disclosure when the appropriate balancing exercise is done by this Court. This is for two main reasons.
First, there would be a serious and obvious "chilling effect" which would tend to deter people from answering questions by the AAIB with the candour which is necessary when accidents of this sort have to be investigated by it. This would seriously hamper future accident investigations and the protection of public safety by the learning of lessons which may help to prevent similar accidents. As is clear from the text cited earlier from Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, the EU Regulation and the 1996 Regulations, this would be contrary to one of the fundamental purposes of the regime in this area, which is carefully designed to encourage candour in the investigation of air accidents in order to learn lessons and prevent accidents in the future.
Secondly, it would be unfair to require such disclosure. This is because the powers of the AAIB, unlike the ordinary police, are such as to permit the compulsion of answers to questions: see Regulation 9 of the 1996 Regulations. Further, so far as I could discern from the hearing before this Court, there is no clear practice, to say the least, of giving a caution to the person interviewed. This is hardly surprising, since the purpose of such an interview is to obtain the fullest possible information in an accident investigation. This contrasts markedly with the purpose of a police interview, which is to elicit evidence which may be capable of being used at a subsequent criminal trial.”
And:
“In the absence of credible evidence that the investigation into an accident is incomplete, flawed or deficient, a Coroner conducting an inquest into a death which occurred in an aircraft accident, should not consider it necessary to investigate again the matters covered or to be covered by the independent investigation of the AAIB. […] [T]he findings and conclusions should not be reopened.”
If you want to read the judgments in full you can find them here: Sussex Police v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor [2016] EWHC 2280 (QB) (28 September 2016)
The Secretary of State, R (on the application of) v HM Senior Coroner for Norfolk & Anor [2016] EWHC 2279 (Admin) (28 September 2016)
FWIW, the Air, Rail and Marine AIBs recently agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Chief Coroner of England and Wales:
Memorandum of Understanding between the AIBs and the Chief Coroner
Memorandum of Understanding between the AIBs and the Chief Coroner
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..I would point out that at least some of those killed or injured were parked in an area with temporary parking restrictions, erected just for the duration of the airshow. Hindsight is always 20/20 perfect vision, pity the parking restrictions were not thoroughly enforced.
They got killed because they parked in the wrong place? Thank you for pointing that out.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The parking restrictions were to do with ROAD traffic of course - not the idea that they were likely to be hit by an aircraft.................
No way round this one - pilot error - not deliberate but still a grim tale................
No way round this one - pilot error - not deliberate but still a grim tale................
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to be cynical, but if people were killed inside their cars while parked illegally next to an airshow, then it sounds like they were not unsuspecting and just passing by, if you do want to make that distinction.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think that you will find that some (if not all) of the fatalities of people in vehicles (including a motorcyclist) were simply driving along the highway or pausing at traffic light signals.
There were 'pedestrians' (including photographers - who might have included a motorcyclist and a cyclist) who were hanging around the road junction (where they knew they would have a view of the aerial activity).
Who were the victims?
There were 'pedestrians' (including photographers - who might have included a motorcyclist and a cyclist) who were hanging around the road junction (where they knew they would have a view of the aerial activity).
Who were the victims?
G-CPTN
That was certainly true of several fatalities on the way to a football match, but the videos clearly show parked vehicles, contrary to the airshow restrictions.
I haven't read what the accident report says on that aspect.
That was certainly true of several fatalities on the way to a football match, but the videos clearly show parked vehicles, contrary to the airshow restrictions.
I haven't read what the accident report says on that aspect.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During Clacton’s air show a lot of the side roads have traffic cones to prevent parking.
Jo public just picks them up and moves them out of the way and parks their vehicle. It would seem that paying for the designated parking is against their psyche. Trouble is the reasons for the cones is to allow access for fire trucks etc.
Jo public just picks them up and moves them out of the way and parks their vehicle. It would seem that paying for the designated parking is against their psyche. Trouble is the reasons for the cones is to allow access for fire trucks etc.
If parked vehicles were judged to be at risk, then the same would have applied to passing traffic and the road should (given 20:20 hindsight) have been completely closed.