Big Rab
I share your thoughts on apportioning blame on the Pilot who cannot defend himself and charterers (in this case Airtours and other UK Airlines) not being aware of the risks of using these type of aircraft.
I question though your statement that " Airtours management (of the time), who had been made well aware of the dangers and limitations by numerous pilots within their organisation who had experience on these types of aircraft. Indeed a number of them had been threatened with disciplinary procedures for voicing their concerns ".
Surely if this had been the case Airtours would have been taken to the cleaners by the Lawyers in the investigation for care of duty?.
Why if numerous Pilots had been voicing there concerns were
the Company considering laying on another rotation to ease complaints from crews over long road joruneys pre/post flight.
I suggest that many comments were made in hindsight post 03/09, but not before

Our thoughts remains with those involved

Roper, I apologise for my mistake. What I should have said was that the three recommendations in the report do not relate to pilot performance but instead concern starter and crankshaft gear repetitive inspections, CVRs and upgrading seats. Furthermore the report points out that the three survivors all thought the thud came from the RH engine and that was where the crew were also looking.

The report concludes that the LH engine continued to produce power for a considerable time after the RH engine was secured and that the aircraft continued to climb. The POH was quoted as advising that level flight could not be maintained with an unfeathered prop on a failed engine so the captain had to feather if he believed the RH engine had failed. The report also concludes that the aircraft was still climbing when the emergency was declared and the intention to return to the field announced.

The report states that the emergency could have started as low as 200ft with the aircraft at max weight. This was a hellish situation for which the report says there is no possibility of training other than in a sim, of which the nearest was in the US.

A Sheriff Principal, 411A, is a senior judge.

[Later]. Thought I'd check with the great Google. A Sheriff Principal, within his sheriffdom, ranks immediately after (a) the Royal Family, (b) the Lord High Commisioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland when the Assembly is in session, and (c) the Lord Lieutenant of the County. Within his jurisdiction he ranks ahead, for example, of the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. He is not exactly something out of the Dukes of Hazzard.

By way of comparison, and depending on how we count it, you and I, 411A, come in the 98th (or so) rank as "gentlemen", unless you fancy being an "esquire", which shoots you up a notch.

Davaar,
Have been called many things, but never an esquire...but hey, i'll get over it.;)
Still wonder WHERE the Sheriff Principal gets his aircraft accident/incident investigatory credentials. Has he had a course or what? Or perhaps, he has just appointed himself as an aeronautical expert and if so...good luck to him.

May I ask a couple of questions here?

It was more than 30 years ago that I flew Cessan twins. I can't remember much but I think we always simulated engine failure by setting a very low power level on the 'failed' engine. As a result I don't know what happens if you try and feather the engine after it has stopped. Some systems have an accumulator that gives you a last bit of shove when the prop has stopped. So can you feather when the engine has stopped? (You can see why I ask this - don't feather whilst an engine is turning. Then you can't make a mistake.)

This begs a second question. On a light twin is there a situation where the prop will keep turning even though it is creating so little power that it causes dangerous drag?

Incidentally I failed my IR on the first attempt because I didn't look at the failed engine (check for fire). It seems here that the pilot(s) were looking at the right-hand engine. I wonder why they thought it looked like it had failed...

I don't know where he got his expertise, 411A; possibly from "assessors". My own experience in the field is limited, but not wholly non-existent. I participated in one fatal accident inquiry long ago in which two senior lawyer participants were ex-military pilots from WW 2. One other participant later achieved an extremely high position in the UK. My group was in conference with our counsel when we received a telephone call from another: Had we noticed one damaging inference from the day's evidence that pointed to conclusion X on the part of the pilot? Yes we had. Did we intend to raise it? No we did not: our participation was not as a public interest representative, but solely to demonstrate that we had done nothing wrong. But surely, we asked, YOU do intend..........? Well, actually, No, old chap. Ah hah!

One of the eventual collateral recommendations in the report was that passengers sit on something like hammocks, not seats, so that the risk of compression fractures of the spine would be reduced. How does that one grab you?

We were lucky to be there at all, because we had never been given official notice of the inquiry. We found out about it by accident. I once alluded to this in PPRuNe and received the response: "I don't believe it". I really don't care about that. I was there and it is true. I could name names, times, and places, but I shall not, so if anyone chooses to believe that I am making all this up foir the general amusement he is welcome. I see no point in attacking those who are dead, and I do not want to be sued by those who are not.

I can tell you this, not one of them was a Sheriff Principal. You do not have to go far to find odd things in accident reports. I have seen some that make me reflect on Bismarck's dictum: "I believe nothing until it has been officially denied."

Davaar,
Bismarck was right on target, today more than ever.

Mr Angry from Purley
I share your surprise if the victims’ lawyers have apparently not taken action against the employer of the deceased.
I can only assume that they are not aware of the numerous prior warnings that were given. In order to construct a case they need hard evidence, not hearsay, and perhaps those able to give evidence may be reluctant to do so for fear of jeopardising their career prospects. If however the lawyers were to seek and find such witnesses and subpoena them, they would be obliged to tell the truth. They are out there, as is documentary evidence.
It was not a case of hindsight.
The lawyers, not having relevant specialist knowledge may well be as ignorant to the limitations & dangers of such aircraft as most of the general public, so it may not even have occurred to them.
So apparently they pick on the easy targets, the dead pilot and the engine manufacturer.
There may well be complaints about long road transfers, which in part prompted the light aircraft transfer, however if those complaining had been aware of the potential danger they were putting them selves in they may have thought differently.:(

> The extra crew onboard were shouting from the back, that the
> flying pilot must use rudder inputs, from what I remember.

What a position for the P to be in. You're real busy trying to work out which engine is failing, maintaining airspeed, navigating, making radio cals etc etc and you've got your peers right in the back yelling at you that it's the right engine, no no the left, no no the right. Could you think straight in this situation?

Guys
An understanding of a Fatal Accident Inquiry would answer most of the issues most people have raised on this thread.

After the accident the police interview absolutely every witness possible. Their H.O.L.M.E.S. computer system will make sure that no one is missed. At the same time the Aviation experts set about the wreckage and the evidence found by both parties is then forwarded to the Procurator Fiscal (Similar to the CPS in England). The PF then decides who will have to go to court to tell their story to the Sheriff.

The Sheriff who will have been a senior lawyer a some point in his career will listen to all the evidence from both eye witnesses and professionals (often very conflicting and then issue his findings. The Sheriff remember has no qualms about apportioning blame if their is anyone to be blamed as he should have no vested interest unlike a lot of people who have posted on this thread.

The sheriffs finding also go a long way as to whether further Civil legal action would be taken by the parties involved. If no further legal action has been taken its because lawyers know they will not win a case as another sheriff is not likely to go against the findings of his fellow judge.

Pilot Pete as much as I understand your frustration about sitting in court all day and not been called you may find you were spared the trauma of actually giving evidence because whatever your evidence was had already been 'Proved' in the court. It does not mean that what you had to say was not worthy of been heard.

Remember guys and girls the people who carried out this investigation and then make judgements on it are experts who have gained from their passed experiences such as Lockerbie and we should maybe just take their findings as the final matter in the sad tragic accident

From the AAIB report, it would appear that the engine on this respective aeroplane failed due to accessory gear failure.
As I mentioned before, this is a known problem area with these TCM engines.
Every operator I personally know who operate aeroplanes fitted with these geared Continental engines (Cessna 404, 411, 421 and AeroCommander 685) are well aware of the requirments of critical service bulletin 94-4D (starter adapter shaft gear and crankshaft gear inspection) and perform regular repetative inspections as called for in the CSB. If any legal action should be initiated due to this accident, I surely hope that the aeroplane maintenance records reflect the proper mandated inspections.
Continental designed these engines a long time ago, and if properly operated and MAINTAINED, are quite reliable.
But, it ain't cheap, just like everything in aviation...you pay now, or you pay later...but you will pay, one way or another.