AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident
An unexpected event with negative consequences occurring without the intention of the one suffering the consequences.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accident - first definition
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accident - first definition
That's why organisations use the term 'incident' and 'collision' instead of 'accident'. An accident can sometimes be averted and as there is usually something or someone at fault, that's not an accident.
Accident.
I agree, I believe this is now used as an excuse to avoid apportioning blame. During my driving test in Germany, it was explained to me that there is never an ‘accident’. There is always someone/something to blame. I agree.
For those in the QA world, I understand that there is always a fault. Whether it be a component failure, someone not following the work flow etc. For those who say that you cannot predict a component failure, if an item is ‘lifed’ For x hours, and fails prior to that, then that component is a failure.
Sorry about the length.
For those in the QA world, I understand that there is always a fault. Whether it be a component failure, someone not following the work flow etc. For those who say that you cannot predict a component failure, if an item is ‘lifed’ For x hours, and fails prior to that, then that component is a failure.
Sorry about the length.
I may have posted this before, but there was a case in the UK some years ago involving a spate of accidents at a certain junction. Cars were going straight across a STOP line and being hit by main road traffic which had priority.
Blame was easy to determine, but a traffic engineer decided it was more important to find the cause. He took the view that these collisions were 'accidents' in the sense that they weren't intended. The police were asked to monitor the junction for drivers failing to stop but not to issue tickets, instead to ask the drivers why they didn't stop. The local 'someone is always to blame' brigade got irate at the lack of prosecutions, but not before the police had learnt that the Stop line was very difficult to see in certain lighting conditions. The line was repainted a few feet further back and the junction became much safer.
Quite frankly I'm prepared to go without apportioning blame if the cause of the accident (and yes there are such things) can be determined. The AAIB generally behaves the way the traffic expert did in this case, and rightly.
Blame was easy to determine, but a traffic engineer decided it was more important to find the cause. He took the view that these collisions were 'accidents' in the sense that they weren't intended. The police were asked to monitor the junction for drivers failing to stop but not to issue tickets, instead to ask the drivers why they didn't stop. The local 'someone is always to blame' brigade got irate at the lack of prosecutions, but not before the police had learnt that the Stop line was very difficult to see in certain lighting conditions. The line was repainted a few feet further back and the junction became much safer.
Quite frankly I'm prepared to go without apportioning blame if the cause of the accident (and yes there are such things) can be determined. The AAIB generally behaves the way the traffic expert did in this case, and rightly.
Originally Posted by cessnapete 
We must accept humans are fallible, accidents will happen.
We must accept humans are fallible, accidents will happen.
Some of you here are probably familiar with the efforts of Captain Dan Marino, at ICAO, one of the early proponents of "human factors" studies, and the author of many publications on the subject of aircraft accidents and human factors.
Dan was fond of saying: "All aircraft accidents are human factors accidents".
By that, he meant that the "human factor" could reach right back to original design, where a potential failure, that took years to manifest itself, was a human failure, in that the whatever was not anticipated and designed out, or given a totally inadequate risk weighting.
Arguing that there is no such thing as an "accident" is pointless, the whole object of the exercise is to minimise "occurrences that lead to adverse personal, community, social or economic outcomes"( I am multi-lingual, I also speak fluent bureaucratese, as well as English) , without bringing a sector of aviation to an economic or operational standstill by imposing "zero accidents" "policies".
That is: Get the risk management right, and keep the criminal law out of it.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Upper Gumtree
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB does not attempt to allocate blame, and nor should it.
More important is to identify an accident waiting to happen, and then to do something about it - even if this only amounts to a quiet word in the ear of an over-confident pilot.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over confident pilots
Is it suggested that accidents can be caused by over confident pilots
Is it suggested the role of the AAIB is to give advice to pilots
Is it suggested the pilot of the accident in question was over confident
Is it suggested a word in his ear would have prevented the accident
Is it suggested the role of the AAIB is to give advice to pilots
Is it suggested the pilot of the accident in question was over confident
Is it suggested a word in his ear would have prevented the accident
There is no going back now. The regulators, the MAA, the AAIB, almost everyone who is directly involved in airshows has re-written the rule book. Risk is uppermost in everyone's mind and mark my word, the next time this happens (a major incident- at an airshow), the roof will come tumbling in and they will not take prisoners.
Example - the RAFAT have done their best to apply their display axis (from a safety perspective) to each and every venue that requests them.
However, it is the Event Organiser (EO) who MUST own this risk on the day.
He/she must risk management the predetermined display to ensure the terrain over which they fly is safe (secondary crowds).
Parts of the RAFAT display comply with SERA 5005(f), so shouldn't be an issue - but where RAFAT have an alleviation to SERA 5005(f) it is up to the EO to decide whether they want to invite this "risk" to their neighbourhood.
If they do - they must apply "reasonable" efforts to mitigate the risk to 2ndary crowds.
Failure to do so will be perceived by the Authorities to be an act of negligence. [If something goes wrong].
Make no bones about this.
Problem is: what is reasonable?
Only two types of people rule the world: Lawyers and Accountants.
Example - the RAFAT have done their best to apply their display axis (from a safety perspective) to each and every venue that requests them.
However, it is the Event Organiser (EO) who MUST own this risk on the day.
He/she must risk management the predetermined display to ensure the terrain over which they fly is safe (secondary crowds).
Parts of the RAFAT display comply with SERA 5005(f), so shouldn't be an issue - but where RAFAT have an alleviation to SERA 5005(f) it is up to the EO to decide whether they want to invite this "risk" to their neighbourhood.
If they do - they must apply "reasonable" efforts to mitigate the risk to 2ndary crowds.
Failure to do so will be perceived by the Authorities to be an act of negligence. [If something goes wrong].
Make no bones about this.
Problem is: what is reasonable?
Only two types of people rule the world: Lawyers and Accountants.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Red Arrows didn't perform at the Farnborough Air Show last year and, despite FAI having a poster that seems to show the Red Arrows, I doubt they perform there again.
It's getting less and less worthwhile for the general public to attend. RIAT is a far better show.
It's getting less and less worthwhile for the general public to attend. RIAT is a far better show.
eal401
I'm sorry, I don't think that any aviation "professionals" blame the victims for being killed.
I think, after 31 years of being paid to fly a variety of aircraft, I can class my self as an aviation "professional". I don't blame the victims for being killed. However what incites me are the legal vultures who after any aviation accident or incident are desperate not to find the cause of the accident so that similar events can be prevented, but who are desperate to find a scapegoat in order that someone can be sued and that a percentage of the monies awarded can find its way into their pockets.
It was not the fault of the innocents on the ground, but you can guarantee that the pilot of this or any other aircraft ever involved in any sort of crash did not take off with the intention of causing injury or death to either himself or herself or any bystanders.
If you are any sort of qualified pilot, navigator, engineer or aviation "professional" you know this. If you are not you have absolutely no qualification, at all, to comment on this forum.
I'm sorry, I don't think that any aviation "professionals" blame the victims for being killed.
I think, after 31 years of being paid to fly a variety of aircraft, I can class my self as an aviation "professional". I don't blame the victims for being killed. However what incites me are the legal vultures who after any aviation accident or incident are desperate not to find the cause of the accident so that similar events can be prevented, but who are desperate to find a scapegoat in order that someone can be sued and that a percentage of the monies awarded can find its way into their pockets.
It was not the fault of the innocents on the ground, but you can guarantee that the pilot of this or any other aircraft ever involved in any sort of crash did not take off with the intention of causing injury or death to either himself or herself or any bystanders.
If you are any sort of qualified pilot, navigator, engineer or aviation "professional" you know this. If you are not you have absolutely no qualification, at all, to comment on this forum.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eal401
I don't blame the victims for being killed. However what incites me are the legal vultures who after any aviation accident or incident are desperate not to find the cause of the accident so that similar events can be prevented, but who are desperate to find a scapegoat in order that someone can be sued and that a percentage of the monies awarded can find its way into their pockets.
I don't blame the victims for being killed. However what incites me are the legal vultures who after any aviation accident or incident are desperate not to find the cause of the accident so that similar events can be prevented, but who are desperate to find a scapegoat in order that someone can be sued and that a percentage of the monies awarded can find its way into their pockets.
Top accident solicitors and barristers had no need to ramp up claims here. If an aircraft falls out of the sky and injures someone on the ground, there is strict liability.
In point of fact the damages arising from death are very modest and are fixed by law. Consequential damages where the deceased person was the breadwinner for dependents are determined on a mathematical basis.
The question here is one of whther the accumulated shortcomings in the preparation and operationof aeroplane and pilot collectively constitute such reckless disregard. And that's a decision which can only be made by a court - "aviation professionals" can inform the decision, but they can't make it.