AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
Reading the AAIB report, I would have thought it very difficult to prove a Manslaughter charge from the evidence there.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unsuccessful appeal by a Royal Air Force officer convicted by a Courts Martial is useful because it contains the following analysis by (the then) Lord Justice Hooper, a Court of Appeal Judge with considerable expertise in criminal law, on provisions applicable to civil flying:
Jackson v R. [2006] EWCA Crim 2380 (17 October 2006)
I have not researched whether those statutory provisions were still current in 2015 or whether any of the penalties have been subsequently increased.
An interesting comparison can be drawn with the provision in respect of the civilian position with regard to low flying. The position there is governed by the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and various regulations made under Sections 60 and 61 of the Act.
The first of those to which my attention has been drawn is the Air Navigation Order 2000. Article 64 creates the offence of Endangering safety of any person or property and provides as follows:
'A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property
That offence carries a penalty of a fine on summary conviction and a fine or a maximum of two years imprisonment or both on conviction on Indictment. Thus an offence which is equivalent to that created by Section 49 of the Air Force Act 1955 carries with it more limited punishment than it would under those provisions.
The United Kingdom Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 -again made under the general authority of the CAA 1982 -provide for an offence of Low Flying in the field of civil aviation. The offence is to be found in Regulations 5(l)(e) and carries a penalty of a fine at Level 4 -currently £2500.
The first of those to which my attention has been drawn is the Air Navigation Order 2000. Article 64 creates the offence of Endangering safety of any person or property and provides as follows:
'A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property
That offence carries a penalty of a fine on summary conviction and a fine or a maximum of two years imprisonment or both on conviction on Indictment. Thus an offence which is equivalent to that created by Section 49 of the Air Force Act 1955 carries with it more limited punishment than it would under those provisions.
The United Kingdom Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 -again made under the general authority of the CAA 1982 -provide for an offence of Low Flying in the field of civil aviation. The offence is to be found in Regulations 5(l)(e) and carries a penalty of a fine at Level 4 -currently £2500.
I have not researched whether those statutory provisions were still current in 2015 or whether any of the penalties have been subsequently increased.
Last edited by roving; 2nd Dec 2017 at 04:00. Reason: syntax
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with BVCU.
At the end of the day the aircraft was not legally fit to fly. It had numerous failings in regards to it airworthiness which means the Permit to Fly obtained was done so by false representation by the maintenance companies for several years. Do the CAA still carry our prosecutions?
This coupled with the air shows failure to adhere to basic health and safety by failing to complete through risk assessments should mean that they are also investigate and prosecuted by the HSE.
Agree the pilot was probably not aware that the aircraft was not as sound as it appeared. After all if you take a car to a garage for a service you take the car in good faith that all the maintenance has been carried out to the correct acceptable level. You would not then carry out a service yourself to check.
The main question is have the police been provided with the aircraft records so that they may look at these and gather evidence or are these now not available to them. Why can't the police have the actual maintenance records and flight test data direct from the maintenance companies. They should also have access to the aircraft if required, after all how are they to obtain evidence if they aren't able to do this. Obviously they will need to employ specialists to help them as I doubt anyone in the police force will be a qualified aircraft engineer or a fast jet pilot with the relevant experience on type.
At the end of the day the aircraft was not legally fit to fly. It had numerous failings in regards to it airworthiness which means the Permit to Fly obtained was done so by false representation by the maintenance companies for several years. Do the CAA still carry our prosecutions?
This coupled with the air shows failure to adhere to basic health and safety by failing to complete through risk assessments should mean that they are also investigate and prosecuted by the HSE.
Agree the pilot was probably not aware that the aircraft was not as sound as it appeared. After all if you take a car to a garage for a service you take the car in good faith that all the maintenance has been carried out to the correct acceptable level. You would not then carry out a service yourself to check.
The main question is have the police been provided with the aircraft records so that they may look at these and gather evidence or are these now not available to them. Why can't the police have the actual maintenance records and flight test data direct from the maintenance companies. They should also have access to the aircraft if required, after all how are they to obtain evidence if they aren't able to do this. Obviously they will need to employ specialists to help them as I doubt anyone in the police force will be a qualified aircraft engineer or a fast jet pilot with the relevant experience on type.
Exactly. The improper certification may be a finding as to risk but it was not a finding as to cause. It has as much to do with how the accident happened as does what the pilot ate for dinner 5 days before. Nothing.
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
The main question is have the police been provided with the aircraft records so that they may look at these and gather evidence or are these now not available to them. Why can't the police have the actual maintenance records and flight test data direct from the maintenance companies. They should also have access to the aircraft if required, after all how are they to obtain evidence if they aren't able to do this. Obviously they will need to employ specialists to help them as I doubt anyone in the police force will be a qualified aircraft engineer or a fast jet pilot with the relevant experience on type.
I don't believe that the police have any authority over the airworthiness of an aircraft.
I'm not sure how much influence they have whether the pilot has broken any aviation laws - who prosecutes a pilot who attempts to fly with too much alcohol? Who administers the breathalyser?
As has been pointed out there are over-riding rules about endangering the public, but they have to obtain evidence - which might be obvious when there has been a crash - but the AAIB are the ones who will have first dibs on the wreckage.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No other details were asked for or given. Was this a pilot that really shouldn't have been there in the first place?
Haven't read the thread so may have been covered. An acquaintance of mine who knew the PIC while in the military said that he wasn't surprised when he found out that he was flying this aircraft.
No other details were asked for or given. Was this a pilot that really shouldn't have been there in the first place?
No other details were asked for or given. Was this a pilot that really shouldn't have been there in the first place?
With a possible prosecution pending, I'd suggest that swapping anecdotes about the competence and track record of an individual pilot on a public forum is totally inappropriate.
An acquaintance of mine who knew the PIC while in the military said that he wasn't surprised when he found out that he was flying this aircraft.
If OTOH your acquaintance was commenting on the PICs competence then in the interests of fairness to AH I will say that your acquaintance’s POV is not one shared by many (if any ) of those those who knew him/flew with him/were instructed by him/instructed him in the military or BA. I have no idea of opinion on his reputation within the air show circuit and no wish to prompt debate on that here.
I am however mindful that over the years I have lost several colleagues or ex-colleagues in display flying accidents (flying vintage jets, vintage pistons and in one case a modern jet as part of a team) and so am slightly aware of what an unforgiving environment it can be for even the most diligent to work in.
Last edited by wiggy; 2nd Dec 2017 at 14:21.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps we should separate the crash from the shady dealings with maintenance.
Whatever the reason for it coming to light, there have clearly been things happening that were not as per the book.
To continue with the police theme, stopping a car for speeding, and finding someone tied up and bleeding in the back seat, is never going to end with just 3 points and a £100 fine for speeding.
Prosecution of the pilot might be difficult, but the engineering paper trail will be simple.
Just like weeding out garages who do MOT certificates by post, all of us in aviation need to have some trust in the engineers, and that requires inspection and enforcement of the rules.
Whatever the reason for it coming to light, there have clearly been things happening that were not as per the book.
To continue with the police theme, stopping a car for speeding, and finding someone tied up and bleeding in the back seat, is never going to end with just 3 points and a £100 fine for speeding.
Prosecution of the pilot might be difficult, but the engineering paper trail will be simple.
Just like weeding out garages who do MOT certificates by post, all of us in aviation need to have some trust in the engineers, and that requires inspection and enforcement of the rules.
Controversial, moi?
JammedStab, your gossip is unwanted and unwarranted.
AH was my co-pilot on numerous commercial sectors in BA. I also flew with him privately in several different types. His professionalism and approach to the task, whether commercial or private, was always thorough and competent.
He is also a decent individual.
AH was my co-pilot on numerous commercial sectors in BA. I also flew with him privately in several different types. His professionalism and approach to the task, whether commercial or private, was always thorough and competent.
He is also a decent individual.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jammed stab
I have worked with the pilot in question during a film project, he was very considered , safety conscious and professional.
I would be quite happy to offer this opinion in court if asked to do so.
I note that my opinion differs some what from what someone told you and you decided to post.
I can’t help thinking that your unsupported post should be removed from this forum.
I would be quite happy to offer this opinion in court if asked to do so.
I note that my opinion differs some what from what someone told you and you decided to post.
I can’t help thinking that your unsupported post should be removed from this forum.
Last edited by A and C; 2nd Dec 2017 at 12:29. Reason: Fat fingered misspelling
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The post should be allowed to stay.
Apart from protecting freedom of expression, it is important to accept that there may well be people who agree with a point of view, but choose not to expose themselves to the perceived mob. We must not allow the cries of "four legs good, two legs bad" to drown out other voices.
For evil to succeed, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.
This is the internet, everyone is allowed to be heard, and you have the right to regret, but not to retract, anything you have said.
Apart from protecting freedom of expression, it is important to accept that there may well be people who agree with a point of view, but choose not to expose themselves to the perceived mob. We must not allow the cries of "four legs good, two legs bad" to drown out other voices.
For evil to succeed, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.
This is the internet, everyone is allowed to be heard, and you have the right to regret, but not to retract, anything you have said.
Problem is JS’s anecdote carries about as much weight as that of the bloke down the pub, where’s it seems others directly commenting here have actually flown with AH or worked with him....
Now if JS’s mate was a former squadron colleague of AH or one of AH’s supervisors whilst in the RAF the anecdote might carry some weight, if not it is just hot air and perhaps should be considered for deletion.
In the interests of full disclosure I knew AH for a time in the RAF, and had enough confidence in his abilities and airmanship to authorise him for sorties on more than one occasion.
Now if JS’s mate was a former squadron colleague of AH or one of AH’s supervisors whilst in the RAF the anecdote might carry some weight, if not it is just hot air and perhaps should be considered for deletion.
In the interests of full disclosure I knew AH for a time in the RAF, and had enough confidence in his abilities and airmanship to authorise him for sorties on more than one occasion.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it does come to trial it would prob. be manslaughter. And a jury will probably convict.
I wonder what sentence might be imposed. I am sure the pilot is suffering the tortures of the damned but on the other hand a lot of people died and the law tends to recognise that as a major factor in sentencing.
He isn't going to do it again but they will also want to send a clear message to everyone for the future.
Also the question of others who may finish in the dock............
Tough call for the judge
I wonder what sentence might be imposed. I am sure the pilot is suffering the tortures of the damned but on the other hand a lot of people died and the law tends to recognise that as a major factor in sentencing.
He isn't going to do it again but they will also want to send a clear message to everyone for the future.
Also the question of others who may finish in the dock............
Tough call for the judge
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He might have been the best of the best and a wonderful human being, talented pilot et al.
You're only as good as your last landing - and that was shyte, he ignored several opportunities to stop the disaster happening.
You're only as good as your last landing - and that was shyte, he ignored several opportunities to stop the disaster happening.
Mistrust in Management
If it does come to trial it would prob. be manslaughter. And a jury will probably convict.
There was no intent whatsoever to kill. There was no motivation to kill. The people killed were not chosen, or known to the Pilot, but were killed in a random fashion.
This was an accident. There may be some truth in the assumption that the Pilot made errors, or had not prepared sufficiently for the manoeuvres, or whatever. However even if these truths are proven beyond reasonable doubt it seems unlikely that a jury would convict because they would find there was no intent to cause injury or death.