|
Judge rules crash black box should be handed over to police
Fresh on the BBC
Judge rules Super Puma crash black box should be handed over to police- BBC News Moved to R&N because the issues raised in this case apply to all pilots who fly aircraft equipped with CVR or FDR or both, not just to helicopter pilots. PPRuNe Admin |
An unfortunate precedent has now been set.
|
A sad day for aviation safety culture. I was rather hoping that the judiciary's dislike of the Scottish government might win the day, but it seems not. Never mind, the next question will be how the police intend to decode and analyse the FDR data to any meaningful extent.
Just as well the Clutha heli had no black boxes! |
A VERY VERY sad day in aviation. Black boxes aren't there to be picked over by the courts but there for accident investigations.
I can see big implications to this ruling ! Your thoughts ? |
It seems to be just the CVR that is to be handed over, HC, so FDR decoding won't be a factor. However, this is a sad moment and a setback to a carefully nurtured culture of open reporting.
|
Very sad day indeed, especially for for the future of the AAIB "The Lord Advocate maintains that given the serious consequences of the crash a thorough and effective investigation by the procurator fiscal and police is in the public interest." Does this mean that AAIB is now redundant and their investigations superfluous?
|
I agree that a worrying line has been crossed. But why?
Trying to look at it from the perspective of the injured and bereaved, I did hear the operator's spokesman on the radio the other day saying they were doing everything possible to help the families and had already paid out £500,000 to them. Quite aside from the four dead, I doubt many of those on board have worked since - and £500k between 16 offshore workers over a 2 year period wouldn't even cover loss of earnings If the system isn't better at getting a swift and fair settlement (as if any settlement could come close) for the innocent victims of a tragedy like this, then I suppose its not entirely surprising if the courts are called upon to intervene to this uncomfortable degree in poring over the detail of the events. |
Originally Posted by keithl
(Post 9017410)
It seems to be just the CVR that is to be handed over, HC, so FDR decoding won't be a factor. However, this is a sad moment and a setback to a carefully nurtured culture of open reporting.
Even if they got the FDR data in "engineering units" they would find it hard to get it interpreted and let's hope nobody in the industry prostitutes themselves to "help out for a fee". |
I've just seen the decision, the whole CVFDR is to be handed over to the police. UK CAA will download and interpret it. Whether they have volunteered for that or been forced, is not clear to me.
The relevant law relates to possible negative impact of disclosure of the data on this and future accident investigations, and adverse international reputation. The judge decided that these were not substantially affected in this case. He was made aware of possible negative impact on flight safety (voluntary reporting etc) but concluded that it was not a relevant point in the law. A precedent is not set, the court would have to rule on each and every such request from the Crown. Data will be kept secret and any CVR transcripts used in any possible prosecutions will be redacted so as to only include relevant conversation. So according to the law, vengeance and retribution is more important than overall flight safety. A great shame but I can't really blame the judge as that is what the law says, from ICAO through EU to UK law. |
Some further detail in this report:
Lord Jones said: "In my judgment, there is no doubt that the Lord Advocate's investigation into the circumstances of the death of each of those who perished in this case is both in the public interest and in the interests of justice." The judge said releasing the cockpit voice reocrding and the flight data was necessary to help the Civil Aviation Authority's Safety and Airspace Regulation Group (SARG) give an expert opinion, which would help the Lord Advocate decide "whether and, if so, against whom to launch a prosecution". "Accordingly, I hold that those data are strictly necessary for the purposes of the police investigation," he said. He added that he was satisfied that disclosure in this case would have no adverse domestic or international impact on the current investigation or on any future safety investigation. He also added conditionsthat the black box would be handed over to Police Scotland who would retain overall control and responsibility for it until it was retuirned to the AAIB. The results of the analysis and any expert opinion following on were to be treated as confidential and only disclosed to the Crown Office and police, he ordered. Lord Jones was told that 78 hours of flight data and two hours of audio recording had been downloaded from the black box by the AAIB during their investigation. The audio material included communications between the commander and co-pilot, radio transmissions and passenger announcements. But the judge said such recordings also capture "ambient sounds" which may be important to an investigation, such as a change in engine note. The AAIB has issued three bulletins over the accident, one of which reported that wreckage examination and recorded data analysis had not shown any evidence of a technical fault that could have caused the accident, although some work remained to be completed. The Lord Advocate said that in the apparent absence of any technical fault the police had asked SARG to provide an expert opinion on the performance of the flight crew. A formal request was made to the AAIB to make the CVFDR available for the investigation, but it said a court order would be required. Aidan O'Neill, QC for the pilots' union, told the court at an earlier hearing that "a culture of openness" was fostered so that when an incident or accident occurred in the aviation industry complete information could be obtained. He said there was a culture of sharing information without fear of reprisals. Lord Jones said accident investigators cannot be required routinely to disclose cockpit voice recordings and such a move can only be ordered in a particular case if the tests laid down in regulations were met. The judge said his decision in the present case would not create a precedent. Dave Finlay
|
Let's just hope in the time it takes the CAA to analyse it all, the AAIB publish their final report.
|
I`m sure that AAIB will appeal this rather one sided judgement.Although this judge was utterly myopic, sometimes the judiciary suffer from the same affliction, collectively....Such a request and judgement is unprecedented. However the Lord Advocate is taking the fashionable and PC way, so common in law these days,that because there was fatalities, no mechanical explanation, the crew have to be negligent and must be put before a court..
Seriously, thats the level, of childish logic you`re up against..The ones with common sense and ability got sidelined and resigned/retired....Good luck, I fear you`ll need it |
I'm sure that AAIB will appeal this rather one sided judgement. "An AAIB spokesperson said: 'Regulations allow for the release of this type of information if a court decides it is in the public interest to do so'." Lord advocate seeking Shetland Super Puma crash voice recorder data from AAIB - BBC News |
I am not sure why some posters believe that pilots should be exempt from an investigation into possible criminal negligence?
If the pilot(s) are not found to be criminally negligent (based on CVFDR analysis by the CAA), no charges will be brought and no information from the CVFDR will be disclosed. That is made clear in the judgement. |
Kkong. "Criminal negligence" is one thing. I have no intention to gloss over it. Failure to exercise the technical skill the licence demands is quite another. Losing a licence may be appropriate, criminal sanctions not. Satisfying a short term punitive objective at the expense of long term flight safety benefits will, to reduce it to its starkest terms, "compensate" a few and kill many more.
This is a time when passenger safety in the North Sea is in the spotlight as never before. If we are to reduce our crews to the insurer's - the lawyers', "Say nothing, leave us to argue the case", that cause will not be served. Hell, why should I get heated about it? I've retired. But some people are trying to undo the progress flight safety has made during my 50 years in the business. |
Keithl
Well said |
Originally Posted by kkong
(Post 9017720)
I am not sure why some posters believe that pilots should be exempt from an investigation into possible criminal negligence?
If the pilot(s) are not found to be criminally negligent (based on CVFDR analysis by the CAA), no charges will be brought and no information from the CVFDR will be disclosed. That is made clear in the judgement. There were no technical factors in this accident as far as we know, that means the aircaft did what you would expect it to do given the control inputs etc. From that it is easy to deduce that it was "pilot error" which, at the simplest level, it probably was. However deciding it was "pilot error" and then hanging the pilots achieves nothing other than vengeance and retribution. The real question is why did the pilots do or fail to do what they did? If it was because they were texting their mates, reading the paper etc then fair enough they were negligent, but I think it's highly unlikely that they were doing anything other than their best. So the question is, why was their best not good enough and within that question lies a raft of issues around training, SOPs, legislation, company culture, national culture, commercial issues, human factors aircraft MMI and a host of other things. To rush into it like the bull in the china shop achieves nothing except popularism and short term political expediency. |
Helicomparitor - Excellant, informative and balanced post.
Sound knowledge leading to appropriate procedures tempered by thorough and rigorous training in a progressive culture = Safety. What was missing? The Captain of that flight was a notably hardworking, dedicated professional. If this action prohibits the capture of the fundamental systemic flaws that led to this accident we will all learn and achieve nothing! |
Nice one DB, totally agree.
What has BALPA had to say on this disgusting issue? |
What has BALPA had to say on this disgusting issue? |
Court of Session Judgment
It's a long document but, for those interested, it sets out the relevant law, summarises the competing legal arguments heard by the Judge, gives the reasons for his decision and, at the end, includes copies of the written arguments submitted in advance of the hearing. FL |
Just read the judgement, thanks for posting the link FL, just one question with "the copies of the written arguments" do you mean the affidavits because can't find those at the end of the document.
Nice to see that, albeit retired, Capt Nick Norman took the time to put forward an affidavit to fight our corner, thanks Nick. |
The affidavits aren't copied.
I was referring to the written notes of argument submitted by the Lord Advocate [Appendix 1] and jointly by BALPA, the Captain and F/O [Appendix 2]. |
Thanks FL :ok:
|
DB & HC have said it all - I hope those who seek retribution read what they have to say.
|
Maybe if the AAIB report was able to be concluded in a timely manner then non of this would have been needed?
Cannot say for sure but the length of investigation, after quickly ruling-out mechanical failure, suggests that the AAIB have not been allowed to crack on with the investigation, unfettered by other government departments or industry concerns..... Timely investigations are done to ensure such an accident does not happen again. Maybe the AAIB has now become un-fit for that particular purpose - I hope not, as they lead the field in crash investigation, but I think their efforts have been thwarted by commercial politics. Maybe a review of procedure and interference is called for - the Oil industry will no doubt ask Mr Chilcot to carry it out :* |
Maybe if the AAIB report was able to be concluded in a timely manner then non of this would have been needed? Cannot say for sure but the length of investigation, after quickly ruling-out mechanical failure, suggests that the AAIB have not been allowed to crack on with the investigation, unfettered by other government departments or industry concerns..... Timely investigations are done to ensure such an accident does not happen again. Maybe the AAIB has now become un-fit for that particular purpose - I hope not, as they lead the field in crash investigation, but I think their efforts have been thwarted by commercial politics. Maybe a review of procedure and interference is called for - the Oil industry will no doubt ask Mr Chilcot to carry it out :* |
kkong
I am not sure why some posters believe that pilots should be exempt from an investigation into possible criminal negligence? If the pilot(s) are not found to be criminally negligent (based on CVFDR analysis by the CAA), no charges will be brought and no information from the CVFDR will be disclosed. Although this particular case related to a helicopter accident, the same issues apply to all aircraft equipped with CVR and/or FDR. |
What happened to the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" principle?
I don't have a CVR or FDR in the aircraft that I fly, but I normally have a GoPro connected to the intercom and seeing the instrument panel.
I'd have no hesitation in turning it over to the CAA, Police Scotland or the AAIB in the event of a crash. Why so many aircrew seem to think that disclosure is a bad idea is beyond me. What exactly is going on up the front that they don't want revealed? |
"nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is not a principle, it is attempt to trip up people into self incriminating themselves.
Flying Lawyer covers that where he says "Have you considered whether aviation safety is better served by investigations in which all those involved are free to speak openly without fear of being prosecuted or by criminal investigations in which anything they say may be used as evidence (against them) in criminal proceedings and in which they have the right not to answer questions?" You freely admit! "many aircrew seem to think that disclosure is a bad idea is beyond me", then obviously you would be well advised to read/study aviation safety management systems and "Just Culture" information as much as you can. The writings of James Reason would be a good a place as any to start. The attempted criminalisation of aviation accident and safety investigation by a number of jurisdictions is of genuine concern. These attempts are also an emerging disincentive and impediment to viable investigations and the attendant safety education and benefits to be derived from these investigations. If accident investigation with criminal and punitive sanctions is such an admirable idea, how come we still manage to kill and maim so many of our fellow citizens on the roads around the world? Tipsy |
airpolice
What happened to the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" principle? I'd have no hesitation in turning it over to the CAA, Police Scotland or the AAIB in the event of a crash. It doesn't necessarily follow that you would actually do it regardless of circumstances. Why so many aircrew seem to think that disclosure is a bad idea is beyond me. You might wish to go on to read about the criminalisation of air accidents. There are several excellent articles available on the internet. Opinions differ but the consensus of informed opinion appears to be that the negatives of criminalisation far outweigh the perceived positives. |
FL if you can answer this question and / or give you opinion:
Has with this case "legal precedent" been set or is the wording in the judgment such this argument will be difficult to use in other cases? That is if "legal precedent" is applicable for these cases. |
The ruling has not created a legal precedent binding upon other Judges. (Nor is it the first time that disclosure has been ordered, either in the UK or elsewhere.) Each application will be decided on its own merits, or lack of.
However, its importance should not be under-estimated because it will undoubtedly be relied upon in the UK, and perhaps in some other jurisdictions, as 'persuasive authority' in support of any future applications for disclosure. What causes concern in some quarters is that the application was made by a prosecuting authority which, in legal jargon, is on a 'fishing expedition'. ie That the prosecuting authority/police are fishing for evidence to prosecute the pilot(s). I have an opinion about that aspect but, for professional reasons, am not free to express it publicly. (Edit) I can say, as a general comment, that I share the widespread concern in some quarters (flight safety & aviation legal) about the increasing tendency in some countries to criminalise air accidents. Very few prosecutions have resulted in convictions but, in terms of flight safety, that is not the issue. . |
You wait until the AAIB have produced their report.
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
(Post 9020480)
AAIB haven't been much use over the last 2 years so what's the alternative?
|
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
(Post 9020480)
Forget that you are all pilots, forget that you know anything at all about aviation. You are now a teacher, a fireman or a plumber.
Your son, daughter, mother or father has died in a helicopter crash that was mechanically sound before it took off, you want answers, 2 years on, you have snippets of information but nothing conclusive. The answers are there but yet due to a no blame culture within the aviation industry, the answers are under lock and key and you can just keep on wondering what exactly happened for the rest of your lives. As long as the AAIB have done their bit and produced a report, the case is closed :ugh: Do you think there is public interest in getting answers or do you think there is public interest in maintaining a no blame culture within the aviation sector? If you ask 100 random strangers whether the CVFDR should be analysed by a prosecution team in the event of fatalities, what do you think the outcome would be? Do you think Joe public give a monkeys about what culture we all adopt in aviation? In other words, pilots are all in a little bubble. We all make mistakes, no doubts about it, but 4 people lost their lives in a serviceable helicopter. A driver lost control of his bin lorry in Glasgow just before Christmas killing 6 people and injuring 10 others, there were no criminal charges brought, there was obviously a medical condition that incapacitated him moments before the incident, these things happen and will continue to happen. What happened in this helicopter crash though? Two highly trained pilots flying a serviceable helicopter into the water, how, why? AAIB haven't been much use over the last 2 years so what's the alternative? Remember you've lost your son, daughter, mother or father in this incident, you're not a pilot, you know nothing about aviation, you just want answers and closure. Try seeing it from another point of view outwith the no blame culture bubble that you're all in:ok: But the situation you are describing doesn't exist. It is not as if there will be no investigation and no knowledge of what happened. A proper investigation is being carried out by the AAIB and once that is published, the relatives etc will know what happened and hopefully why. If the report indicates that the pilots were grossly negligent ie not paying proper attention or recklessly and intentionally not following procedure then I would expect there to be some sort of criminal prosecution. Of course whilst such a prosecution might satisfy some of the relatives' desire for revenge , it won't bring their loved ones back and I suspect won't actually make them feel any better. However we have not got to the stage of the AAIB report yet, and until that is forthcoming the best action is none. I agree that the delay is frustrating, especially so for the relatives and survivors, and wish these reports could be compiled quicker, but I guess it is at least to some extent a matter of resources. I'm sure it isn't deliberate delaying tactics by AAIB. By the way, we aren't in a "no blame culture" these days, it's a "just culture" |
Mitchaa, I derived from your scenario the distinct impression that you are looking for some kind of retribution. An investigation conducted on that basis will be unlikely to find the root cause of whatever happened and in all finality become a witch hunt.
Aviation accident (incident) investigations are conducted in an effort to prevent the same or similar occurrences happening again and not to apportion blame. This is the exact opposite of the way road accidents are investigated, how successful has that been in that particular realm? Tipsy |
Mitchaa
Forget that you are all pilots, forget that you know anything at all about aviation. You are now a teacher, a fireman or a plumber. Your son, daughter, mother or father has died in a helicopter crash Do you think there is public interest in getting answers or do you think there is public interest in maintaining a no blame culture within the aviation sector? I wouldn't know enough to form any opinion about what is in the best interests of future flight safety - even if I cared - and even if I was capable of thinking rationally about it which is very unlikely. If you ask 100 random strangers whether the CVFDR should be analysed by a prosecution team in the event of fatalities, what do you think the outcome would be? Do you think Joe public give a monkeys about what culture we all adopt in aviation? But I wouldn't rely on Joe public's opinion about the best way to teach, put out fires or plumb. I'd rely upon specialists in the field. And if my son, daughter, mother or father was injured in an accident I'd want experts treating them, not Joe Public. Excluding expert knowledge, and then adding emotion, is not going to produce sensible answers. the answers are under lock and key ..... The answers, so far as can be determined by independent air accident investigation specialists, are published in AAIB reports not kept under lock and key. Are you interested in knowing the answers or in having people prosecuted? |
Actually, the issue goes beyond release of the black box and other crash data. The real subject is "who has authority over air operations?"
Granting political, headline-grubbing local prosecutors the ability to charge people is an invitation to chaos, where local cops and prosecutors can grab headlines while having absolutely no expertise in the matter at hand. In some countries, the ability to govern air operations and enforce air law is not granted below the national government level. In the US, for example, locals have no jurisdiction, only the FAA can enforce aviation law. While they can be bureaucratic, at least the FAA has expertise and familiarity with the law. Also, the crash site and data can be impounded by the National Transportation Safety Board, which has full authority over crash investigation. The NTSB will not permit its conclusions to be used in any court, by Federal Law. The data they gather is public record, and can be had by almost anyone. As Flying Lawyer so rightly describes, protecting the quest for truth and the ability to fix the system is paramount. The process must, in the end, make the next accident less likely to happen or the process is broken. |
.
I'd be interested to learn the views of professional pilots about these issues: (1) Do you think there is any difference between releasing CVR and releasing FDR data? (2) If you are opposed to either being released, would your stance be the same if a pilot/crew being prosecuted wanted to obtain either as part of their defence? (3) Or if the pilot/crew (or their estate) wanted the material in order to defend a negligence claim. ie In a civil action against them or their estate/bereaved families? |
I ask the question, was/is the AAIB able to perform its function in the investigation to ICAO standards?
If so, I'm afraid that any other issues belong in those that make the laws of the state in spite of what we world widers personally feel about it. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.