AAIB investigation to Hawker Hunter T7 G-BXFI 22 August 2015
"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
DavidReidUK,
Sadly, a piece of "risk management" decision making,that, on the day, proved inadequate. I can understand why a local authority would be reluctant to close a major road completely, but decide preventing parking, would be enough.
Sadly, a piece of "risk management" decision making,that, on the day, proved inadequate. I can understand why a local authority would be reluctant to close a major road completely, but decide preventing parking, would be enough.
So we are demanding that the area under an aerial display is sterilized of the public?
Expect then at next Farnborough Airshow, Farnborough and Aldershot evacuated and 5 mile ban on traffic perhaps!
It is impossible to mitigate all risk unless air shows are banned. Life can never be 100% safe, neither can we completely stop tragic occurrences like Shoreham happening occasionally.
Expect then at next Farnborough Airshow, Farnborough and Aldershot evacuated and 5 mile ban on traffic perhaps!
It is impossible to mitigate all risk unless air shows are banned. Life can never be 100% safe, neither can we completely stop tragic occurrences like Shoreham happening occasionally.
Would those people showing a rather indifferent attitude to the deaths of 11 people, still have the same attitude if it was their family members?
Parking in an unauthorised area should not mean that, in the event of death, tough luck.
Parking in an unauthorised area should not mean that, in the event of death, tough luck.
The Nip
Ok tell us without draconian restrictions, how you would prevent people nearby, not spectators, from such an occurrence ever happening again.
Im not indifferent, pragmatic perhaps.
Ok tell us without draconian restrictions, how you would prevent people nearby, not spectators, from such an occurrence ever happening again.
Im not indifferent, pragmatic perhaps.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: warlingham
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parking in a prohibited area
Effectively turns you into a trespasser
Plenty of case law whether property owners owe trespassers a duty of care when the trespassers have been injured....
Plenty of case law whether property owners owe trespassers a duty of care when the trespassers have been injured....
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the victims was a chauffeur on his way to pick up a bride and take her to her wedding. Clearly he at least was just travelling perfectly legitimately along a public road with no intent of stopping to watch the air display. Therefore a completely innocent member of the public died as he went about his own business as a result of this incident. He was not trespassing, he was in a public place, and there is strong evidence to suggest that he was a completely innocent victim of circumstance. How many other people were similarly innocent and just happened to be travelling past the display? I would suggest the majority. Those parked up and outside their vehicles had a chance to make a run for it as events unfolded.
Easy answer to preventing similar incidents, ban all display flights over and in the vicinity of any inhabited or transit areas. I don't expect that anyone really wants that to happen.
Therefore it is probably best to leave it up to the organisers, pilots, and maintenance crews to make such displays as safe as possible in the knowledge that they will collectively and individually face the full force of the law if something goes wrong.
It may take only a couple of moments inattention or misjudgement to contribute to a tragedy, but I think the public expect and are entitled to expect display pilots to be at the top of their game and the best of the best. Standards that were singularly lacking in this case, in display planning, in aircraft maintenance, flight discipline and piloting skills.
Easy answer to preventing similar incidents, ban all display flights over and in the vicinity of any inhabited or transit areas. I don't expect that anyone really wants that to happen.
Therefore it is probably best to leave it up to the organisers, pilots, and maintenance crews to make such displays as safe as possible in the knowledge that they will collectively and individually face the full force of the law if something goes wrong.
It may take only a couple of moments inattention or misjudgement to contribute to a tragedy, but I think the public expect and are entitled to expect display pilots to be at the top of their game and the best of the best. Standards that were singularly lacking in this case, in display planning, in aircraft maintenance, flight discipline and piloting skills.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two classes of victims in this case, those who had been going about their business and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The other class of victim is those who decided to avoid the safe areas provided for those who wanted to watch the air display, they had knowlage of the display and decided to take the risk of not being in a safe area.
The first category of victim should have full compensation, the second category of victims clearly had knowlage of the risks and decided to take that risk, this fact should be taken into account when compensation is awarded.
The other class of victim is those who decided to avoid the safe areas provided for those who wanted to watch the air display, they had knowlage of the display and decided to take the risk of not being in a safe area.
The first category of victim should have full compensation, the second category of victims clearly had knowlage of the risks and decided to take that risk, this fact should be taken into account when compensation is awarded.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live close to the scene and there were would have been few illegally parked vehicles.
The crash scene is close to and parallel to the main A27 road - at it's furthest point the crash scene is no more than about 10 metres from the road.
The crashing aircraft had strayed from its route or should simply not have been where it was when it crashed.
It's true there would have been nothing stopping people walking to the spot. I've done it myself in past; likewise there would be nothing stopping people going about their lawful business walking past on their way wherever.
Indeed I would have been doing nothing illegal had I decided to walk in the area on that particular day.
It is not those who happened to be where they were that are in any way at fault; indeed if anybody is.
The crash scene is close to and parallel to the main A27 road - at it's furthest point the crash scene is no more than about 10 metres from the road.
The crashing aircraft had strayed from its route or should simply not have been where it was when it crashed.
It's true there would have been nothing stopping people walking to the spot. I've done it myself in past; likewise there would be nothing stopping people going about their lawful business walking past on their way wherever.
Indeed I would have been doing nothing illegal had I decided to walk in the area on that particular day.
It is not those who happened to be where they were that are in any way at fault; indeed if anybody is.
Would you reduce the compensation payable to the families of those killed at, say, Ramstein or Reno?
It is impossible to mitigate all risk unless air shows are banned.
Sadly, that is the effective results in Australia, it is well nigh impossible to stage any airshow over what is called (without clear definition) a "populous area" in Australia, leaving a very limited number of venues where a serious airshow can be mounted within reasonable proximity to a population that makes an airshow a viable financial proposition.
As soon as any (but especially aviation) government authority starts talking about "absolute safety" you know your proposal is in trouble.
GOULI
Obviously all display pilots hope to be at the top of their game including the one involved in this accident. Why would you want the full force of the law to fall on any making an error of judgement or a mistake?. That would certainly have made me give up display flying, as would the involvement of the police in an AAIB investigation.
No one climbs into a high speed aircraft to display, with the intent to be grossly negligent or reckless in their performance.
We must accept humans are fallible, accidents will happen.
Obviously all display pilots hope to be at the top of their game including the one involved in this accident. Why would you want the full force of the law to fall on any making an error of judgement or a mistake?. That would certainly have made me give up display flying, as would the involvement of the police in an AAIB investigation.
No one climbs into a high speed aircraft to display, with the intent to be grossly negligent or reckless in their performance.
We must accept humans are fallible, accidents will happen.
"No one climbs into a high speed aircraft to display, with the intent to be ... reckless in their performance."
Hmmm? - and what is your definition of reckless as against, for example, 'showing off'? Been in a few, in my time, mainly slow and rotary and not all were 'text-book examples'. Adrenalin rush can modify almost anyone's behaviour.
Hmmm? - and what is your definition of reckless as against, for example, 'showing off'? Been in a few, in my time, mainly slow and rotary and not all were 'text-book examples'. Adrenalin rush can modify almost anyone's behaviour.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the greatest of respect some of those commenting here are conflating two distinct and separate issues. Both are equally important but require different trains of thought.
The separate issues are:
(1) Do the competing public interests of (a) permitting airshows with the minimum possible constraints, and (b) minimising the risk of injury or death to the public at large, require the CAA to make changes to the existing rules governing air displays and if so what changes?
(2) Do the circumstances which gave rise to the Shoreham accident evidence criminal conduct on the part of those who organised and controlled the air display and / or the pilot?
So far as the first question is concerned the CAA acknowledged the problem in its report published on 28 May 2016 at page 5 ...
Every time a regulator is faced with a tragic accident, they must consider the balance
between further regulatory controls versus the constraints that might be placed on
activities that people value. Air displays are no different. Every year almost six million
people visit air displays at hundreds of locations across the UK – shows which raise
millions of pounds for charity as well as, in the case of displays like Farnborough,
providing a showcase for advanced British industry. Finding that balance is not easy.
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...00%20MAY16.pdf
So far as the second question is concerned, in the absence of all the relevant facts it is premature to express opinions as to whether there is evidence sufficient to justify any prosecution, even assuming such was held to be in the public interest, having regard to the views of the CAA set-out at (1) above.
The separate issues are:
(1) Do the competing public interests of (a) permitting airshows with the minimum possible constraints, and (b) minimising the risk of injury or death to the public at large, require the CAA to make changes to the existing rules governing air displays and if so what changes?
(2) Do the circumstances which gave rise to the Shoreham accident evidence criminal conduct on the part of those who organised and controlled the air display and / or the pilot?
So far as the first question is concerned the CAA acknowledged the problem in its report published on 28 May 2016 at page 5 ...
Every time a regulator is faced with a tragic accident, they must consider the balance
between further regulatory controls versus the constraints that might be placed on
activities that people value. Air displays are no different. Every year almost six million
people visit air displays at hundreds of locations across the UK – shows which raise
millions of pounds for charity as well as, in the case of displays like Farnborough,
providing a showcase for advanced British industry. Finding that balance is not easy.
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...00%20MAY16.pdf
So far as the second question is concerned, in the absence of all the relevant facts it is premature to express opinions as to whether there is evidence sufficient to justify any prosecution, even assuming such was held to be in the public interest, having regard to the views of the CAA set-out at (1) above.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree that there is no currently published evidence to suggest any criminal intent on behalf of anyone involved in the Shoreham display, there is certainly a substantial amount to suggest that negligence (or ignorance) was a factor. Just how much this negligence contributed to the outcome and in what proportion is strictly for a court to establish.
The severity of this incident cannot allow it to be summarised as just a tragic accident with no one held accountable.
The severity of this incident cannot allow it to be summarised as just a tragic accident with no one held accountable.
Difficult one from a regulation point of view , ignoring the pilots part in this , as per the report the aircraft was not airworthy and shouldn't have been flying , mainly due to the CAA not doing their job. If you read the technical side they didn't accept most of this but have now been forced to which has meant that hunters can fly again if the relevant concerns are sorted. How the insurers etc sort this will be the problem when it appears to primarily be a CAA issue.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree that there is no currently published evidence to suggest any criminal intent on behalf of anyone involved in the Shoreham display, there is certainly a substantial amount to suggest that negligence (or ignorance) was a factor. Just how much this negligence contributed to the outcome and in what proportion is strictly for a court to establish.
The severity of this incident cannot allow it to be summarised as just a tragic accident with no one held accountable.
The severity of this incident cannot allow it to be summarised as just a tragic accident with no one held accountable.
To illustrate the complexity of the issues which arise let me make this analogy.
Last Saturday Lewis Hamilton, having been crowned F1 Champion for 2017, was performing time trials to establish his grid position for the race on Sunday. As he freely admitted he 'overcooked it on a bend' resulting in him losing control of the car and hitting a safety wall.
No one was injured. But suppose someone had not only been inured but was killed in that accident, would Lewis Hamilton be at risk of a criminal prosecution? I cannot for speak for Brazil, but in the UK he most certainly would not be. Why? Because the law of England makes a special exception for dangers arising from sport. Another example may help. As long as a boxing bout is performed as a regulated activity the fact that one boxer may cause very serious harm or even death to another boxer does not expose him to the risk of prosecution, even though two boxers involved in prize fighting which was not supervised by a regulated body would on similar facts be breaking the law.
Before one begins to look at whether there was what you describe as negligence, one first has to consider the context. The context here was a public airshow which by its nature is inherently dangerous. Take the two Red Arrows which fly head on towards each other and then one turns a few seconds prior to the two aircraft hitting each other. The intended display of the Hunter came no where close to that. If like Lewis Hamilton the pilot misjudged the loop, that misjudgment like Hamilton's last Saturday was an inherent incident or risk or danger of the activity he was lawfully engaged in.
Let me make it clear, I am not suggesting that the CPS may not mount a prosecution, but merely illustrating the issues it faces. Populism doers not provide the answer on this occasion.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I am not sure I agree with your first analogy. If a racing team said to their driver, 'take that car out, the brakes are no good but I am sure you can handle it' and the driver did so knowingly then isn't there case of negligence, perhaps criminal negligence? (I don't know what the difference is).
I am not suggesting that is the case here, just I don't think your analogy is a good one.
And I would not accept that airshows are inherently dangerous; the two Red Arrows are never head on.
I am not suggesting that is the case here, just I don't think your analogy is a good one.
And I would not accept that airshows are inherently dangerous; the two Red Arrows are never head on.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roving
I accept the point you are trying to establish, but if Lewis Hamilton departed from the track through a gap in the crash barrier and then proceeded onto a public road and then hit several pedestrians who were not attending the race meeting, then we might have a comparable situation.
The case to prove is whether the track officials should have reasonably foreseen that a gap in the barrier might allow such an accident to happen, or was the driver at fault in failing to factor the possibility of departing the track in this manner. Possibly there was some inherent fault in the car that caused it to depart from the planned course.
That is why there will be no simple answers to what happened at Shoreham.
I accept the point you are trying to establish, but if Lewis Hamilton departed from the track through a gap in the crash barrier and then proceeded onto a public road and then hit several pedestrians who were not attending the race meeting, then we might have a comparable situation.
The case to prove is whether the track officials should have reasonably foreseen that a gap in the barrier might allow such an accident to happen, or was the driver at fault in failing to factor the possibility of departing the track in this manner. Possibly there was some inherent fault in the car that caused it to depart from the planned course.
That is why there will be no simple answers to what happened at Shoreham.