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

[airpolice]

You guess wrongly.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be clear in the contract. The amount money involved can be significant.

Failing to complete the task, might be seen as grounds for not paying.

[Hebog]

So basically the police have to provide evidence when they have no access to any of the data, files or the aircraft itself. They have to themselves undertake the same investigative work as the AAIB have already done and call in independent professionals. As far as I am concerned as would many others that there is no reason why the police/CPS can't use the factual info provided by the AAIB in their report.. Not the statements but the data only.


Does this also apply to the CAA and if they are in charge of air safety instead of the HSE, do they carry out prosecutions too. As I see it there are a number of prosecutions that could be carried out by various bodies if that it is the case. After all if the CAA are meant to ensure regulations are adhered to they must also show they are prepared to act against rogue companies/bad practices. What is the point of regulatory bodies if they are not prepared/willing to act.


After all the CAA have failed to ensure the safety of the public by not undertaking through checks on the pilot and his training/authorisation, the maintenance and condition of the aircraft including any restrictions, allowance of a flight test showing possible engine abnormalities, non-compliance with the owners own organisation manual and lack of through risk assessments by the airshow organisers.


For me there is still a question over the engine mapping for the 'loop' as it appears to be different to others he had performed in the aircraft. This with the engine abnormalities recorded in the test flight (was the test pilot interviewed and his records checked) and the additional issues with the ASI may be used by AH in defence.

[roving]

The CAA do frequently prosecute offences contravening their regulations. Examples: flying drones, flying without insurance or without a licence or current medical certificate , low flying, flying into controlled airspace without permission. The penalties are very modest and normally between a £200 and £3000.

In this high profile case the Police appear to have decided that the CAA menu of regulatory offences do not meet the gravamen of the case and they have conducted their own investigation taking hundreds of statements and very probably consulting with various experts. The papers are now with the Crown Prosecution Service and no doubt it is consulting with the CAA and others as part of the decision making process.

It is will be forensically interesting to see how this all pans out.

[G0ULI]

It is perhaps worth pointing out (again) that the police role is solely to gather evidence. It is for the CPS to assess the evidence obtained and make a decision as to whether it is admissable, obtained fairly (from a legal standpoint), and whether the evidence is sufficient to bring a criminal case before the courts with a reasonable chance of obtaining a successful prosecution.

There is a completely separate procedure for civil action(s) mounted to obtain damages.

A Coroners Inquest into the deaths will also come up with its' own set of findings that may impact on criminal and civil procedings.

[roving]

1. The Coroner's Inquest will be adjourned until a decision is made in respect of the criminal investigation. If a prosecution is to occur, the Inquest will be further adjourned until a verdict or outcome.

2. The civil damages aspects arising from this accident were settled some appreciable time ago.

[dsc810]

Originally Posted by roving

This is the third time I have had to draw attention to the fact that the insurers of the aircraft admitted responsibility and settled the claims within months of the accident.

Mainly because under the law it works as a strict liability.
In other words the insurers cannot duck liability under any circumstances regardless of any deficiencies in the aircraft or the pilot or of licensing...etc.
They are compelled to pay out.

[Hebog]

The police/CPS I doubt will bring a prosecution against the maintenance companies for falsely claiming the aircraft meet CAA regulations/rules and all maintenance practices had been carried out in accordance with those. Hopefully the CAA will be undertaking a review of the licences of these companies.


The airshow organisers may face prosecution of some form, such as corporate manslaughter due to inadequate risk assessments being carried out. As could the company owning the hunter as they should have also carried out a risk assessment The pilot may face gross negligence, deaths in workplace, and H&S offences. As far as I am aware prosecution of organisations can now take place where there has been a gross failure in the management of health & safety that has resulted in someone's death. The organisation comments an offence if the way its activities are managed or organised causes a death that amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care to the deceased. A prosecution would be based upon a substantial failure within the organisation at a senior level. The courts dealing with a prosecution will look at management systems and practices throughout the organisation.


So basically, if the CPS deem that the airshow organisers and the hunter owners had a duty of care to the general public (paying or otherwise) then they could face prosecution provided that the evidence shows a failure in care. Which according the AAIB report it does due to lack of risk assessments and non-compliance with CAA regulations.

[roving]

The last thing those with ultimate authority for deciding whom should be prosecuted for what will want is this turning into some three month show pony with costs awarded against the Crown at the end of it for bringing charges they had no reasonable prospect of proving.

1. The CAA will not want its regulatory function under the microscope.

2, The Government will not want any outcome which may curtail airshows. Farnborough is vitally important.

3, The Military will not want any outcome which may require them to curtail low flying or aerobatics as part of training, including UAS aerobatics.

[Ranger One]

Originally Posted by airpolice

Failing to complete the task, might be seen as grounds for not paying.

That kind of thinking has... considerable safety implications, to put it mildly.

Would the CAA tolerate an operator telling an ATPL PIC, or even implying to an ATPL PIC, 'operate the flight or you don't get paid'?

[airpolice]

This is just business.

Originally Posted by Ranger One

That kind of thinking has... considerable safety implications, to put it mildly.

Would the CAA tolerate an operator telling an ATPL PIC, or even implying to an ATPL PIC, 'operate the flight or you don't get paid'?

This is not about the operator not paying the pilot, it's about a customer not paying a supplier, who has declined to supply a service.

Should you call a central heating engineer out to your hotel, because the guests are freezing, but he fails to attend because of the bad weather, would you still pay him anyway? Would the guests pay you if they had to leave because of the cold?

[mrangryofwarlingham]

Force majeur

Well known concept

You can agree in a contract where the risk falls

[iceman50]

airpolice

You are correct

I don't know a lot about the airshow business, but I would expect that the organisers might not want to pay, if you don't display.

Safety comes well before displaying when the conditions are not suitable. Display pilots would have a horizontal routine should the weather preclude a "normal" routine and if the weather was unsuitable for that a fly past or nothing at all. They were my plans for displaying.

As for

However, in this case we seem to be overlooking the bit where some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue.

I think the "event" occurred outside the display area.

[Heathrow Harry]

Originally Posted by roving

The last thing those with ultimate authority for deciding whom should be prosecuted for what will want is this turning into some three month show pony with costs awarded against the Crown at the end of it for bringing charges they had no reasonable prospect of proving.

1. The CAA will not want its regulatory function under the microscope.

2, The Government will not want any outcome which may curtail airshows. Farnborough is vitally important.

3, The Military will not want any outcome which may require them to curtail low flying or aerobatics as part of training, including UAS aerobatics.

You've forgotten the self -interest of the Legal profession to ensure all and every avenue is explored at vast cost for years if need be - several times over if they are lucky.......

[airpolice]

Originally Posted by iceman50

airpolice

You are correct

Quote:
I don't know a lot about the airshow business, but I would expect that the organisers might not want to pay, if you don't display.

Safety comes well before displaying when the conditions are not suitable. Display pilots would have a horizontal routine should the weather preclude a "normal" routine and if the weather was unsuitable for that a fly past or nothing at all. They were my plans for displaying.


As for

Quote:

However, in this case we seem to be overlooking the bit where some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue.



I think the "event" occurred outside the display area.

Are you saying that the organisers, council, police and CAA are not responsible for activity outside of the airfield or crowd area?

The crash occurred on the 230m line so isn't that their responsibility - an area that you as a display pilot would expect to be sanitised, would you not?

So is the pilot solely responsible for this area? This is not my interpretation of the AAIB report, nor their damning analysis of the Shoreham Airshow Risk Assessment and their wider criticism of the organisational aspects.

The AAIB commissioned a review by the Health and Safety Laboratory, of the risk assessment for the 2015 show. The review also considered the equivalent risk assessments for the 2013 and 2014 Shoreham air shows. It’s reports stated;

“It was found that the Shoreham Air show Air Display Risk Assessment contained a number of deficiencies compared to what would have been expected for a risk assessment to control risks to the public.”

My point remains...... some of the people charged with running the show, failed to do their agreed bit to provide a safe venue.

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.’

The arrangements, which had been in place for several years, included
restricting the view of the airfield, placing signs in the area and having stewards ask people to move on.

However, neither the organisers nor the police had requested or been granted the power to exclude people from this area and their efforts did not prevent a gathering at the A27 junction.

[iceman50]

airpolice

he crash occurred on the 230m line so isn't that their responsibility - an area that you as a display pilot would expect to be sanitised, would you not?

Short answer NO. You have to plan your display for the venue and the weather. I would expect the display line to be sanitised. You don't just turn up without preparation. You seem to think that the whole area should have been closed down by quoting the AAIB report. That would have been a major inconvenience for the majority of the public in that area. The Health and Safety Laboratory would find deficiencies in any organised event.

As you say

This is not my interpretation of the AAIB report, nor their damning analysis (Your interpretation again)

[cessnapete]

airpolice
Ridiculous requirement. You cannot “sanitise” an airshow environment unless you clear all activity beneath a display footprint. And any footprint beneath the possible uncontrollable trajectory of the display aircraft after mechanical failure, pilot error etc.
This has never been done. i.e. clearing out all the residents and traffic movements at Aldershot and Farnborough during the air display?. Impossible and unreasonable, and would shut down future air displays if implemented because of the Shoreham event, however tragic the outcome.
You can never have absolute safety unless you ban the activity taking place.

[airpolice]

You can however, do all that you have agreed needs to be done. That didn't happen.

[cessnapete]

airpolice
Ok then, how many roads around the airport should, or would you have closed?. What about the occupants of adjacent homes and buildings?
Prior to the event how would you have known that an out of control aircraft would impact that 50mts. of highway rather than 50 mts either side hurting no one other than perhaps the pilot? Who would you blame for this lack of perceived of foresight?
Again it is logical that without complete sanitisation of the area under any high energy display you cannot prevent the million to one chance of an event like this.
Safety is not absolute.

[airpolice]

I don't know which roads ought to have been closed, I didn't do the safety case for the air show. My point is that some of the people who did, failed to have it carried out.

They didn't know, but they suspected, and agreed that it was important to mitigate the potential, then failed in their duty to do so. This is not hindsight, they saw it coming and formulated a plan to minimise the danger, then failed to execute the plan.

[cessnapete]

Here you go again! You can't say just some roads should have been closed without knowing where anything may have impacted. No person can be blamed for that, other than saying he/she should have shut down all activity under the flight path.
What about Shoreham town centre? How did this person know that something wouldn't land there, should mishap occur?