Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
BrabusMog said:
Dr Jekyll said:
BrabusMog said:
Dr Jekyll said:
RYH64E said:
As for blame, I very much doubt that there was any deliberate intention to harm, but negligence or lack of due care can't be ruled out. If a similar thing happened on the roads, with a (even highly skilled) driver performing some kind of 'watch this' manoeuvre to entertain his friends that resulted in 11 deaths, then I'm damn sure he would be prosecuted. I'd be amazed if 'sorry, I've learnt my lesson' would suffice.
If by a 'watch this' manoeuvre you mean something reckless like drifting on a public road, they could be prosecuted totally irrespective of whether anyone died or whether there was even a crash.If the incident was a result of attempting a legitimate if potentially hazardous manoeuvre and getting it wrong, it's perfectly possible they wouldn't be prosecuted irrespective of who died.
There was a case near me a couple of years back when a young (teenage I think) driver lost control of his Saxo on a notoriously slippery roundabout and killed a pedestrian. He wasn't charged with anything, even the police don't appear to have made your presumption.
Edit just to add - in reference to the pilot, not the theoretical boy racer.
BrabusMog said:
Dr Jekyll said:
BrabusMog said:
Dr Jekyll said:
BrabusMog said:
Dr Jekyll said:
RYH64E said:
As for blame, I very much doubt that there was any deliberate intention to harm, but negligence or lack of due care can't be ruled out. If a similar thing happened on the roads, with a (even highly skilled) driver performing some kind of 'watch this' manoeuvre to entertain his friends that resulted in 11 deaths, then I'm damn sure he would be prosecuted. I'd be amazed if 'sorry, I've learnt my lesson' would suffice.
If by a 'watch this' manoeuvre you mean something reckless like drifting on a public road, they could be prosecuted totally irrespective of whether anyone died or whether there was even a crash.If the incident was a result of attempting a legitimate if potentially hazardous manoeuvre and getting it wrong, it's perfectly possible they wouldn't be prosecuted irrespective of who died.
There was a case near me a couple of years back when a young (teenage I think) driver lost control of his Saxo on a notoriously slippery roundabout and killed a pedestrian. He wasn't charged with anything, even the police don't appear to have made your presumption.
Edit just to add - in reference to the pilot, not the theoretical boy racer.
Dr Jekyll said:
BrabusMog said:
Dr Jekyll said:
BrabusMog said:
Dr Jekyll said:
BrabusMog said:
Dr Jekyll said:
RYH64E said:
As for blame, I very much doubt that there was any deliberate intention to harm, but negligence or lack of due care can't be ruled out. If a similar thing happened on the roads, with a (even highly skilled) driver performing some kind of 'watch this' manoeuvre to entertain his friends that resulted in 11 deaths, then I'm damn sure he would be prosecuted. I'd be amazed if 'sorry, I've learnt my lesson' would suffice.
If by a 'watch this' manoeuvre you mean something reckless like drifting on a public road, they could be prosecuted totally irrespective of whether anyone died or whether there was even a crash.If the incident was a result of attempting a legitimate if potentially hazardous manoeuvre and getting it wrong, it's perfectly possible they wouldn't be prosecuted irrespective of who died.
There was a case near me a couple of years back when a young (teenage I think) driver lost control of his Saxo on a notoriously slippery roundabout and killed a pedestrian. He wasn't charged with anything, even the police don't appear to have made your presumption.
Edit just to add - in reference to the pilot, not the theoretical boy racer.
Edited by BrabusMog on Wednesday 28th October 20:31
Dr Jekyll said:
BrabusMog said:
Where does he say the pilot acted recklessly?
Where he says that the case is similar to that of a car driver behaving recklessly.Edited by BrabusMog on Wednesday 28th October 20:31
Dr Jekyll said:
Where he says that the case is similar to that of a car driver behaving recklessly.
I didn't mention reckless behaviour, I was suggesting the motoring equivalent to whatever kind of (legal) acrobatic stunt the pilot was performing. Maybe demonstrating launch control on a car capable of sub 4 seconds 0-60 times, or letting the back drift out on a NSL bend. Not illegal, but likely to get a driver into all sorts of trouble if 11 bystanders are killed in the process.charlie7777 said:
Scuffers said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
back to the original point, if you want people to come forward and help the investigation, having the Police there to potentially charge them will not exactly be beneficial, ie. evidence will simply not be brought forward etc.way I see it, it should be up to the AAIB to decide if there is reason for a criminal investigation (and thus involve the Police).
dr_gn said:
The fact that the Police are investigating the incident and are going to interview the pilot as part of their investigations, kind of makes anyone arguing the contrary look somewhat silly.
I can see the irony parrot whooshing by againI said before there are two ends of a scale
you could get a pilot whos determined to kill some people and aims his plane to do just that
at the other end someone whos trying to prevent their plane crashing for whatever reason heroically staying with it to avoid a crowd
Which end of the scale do you think we are?
The AAIB works by trying to find out what happened without fear or favour so that anyone involved can come forward with as much info and without the threat of retribution so as to try to prevent it happening again
A police investigation inevitably ends up with people trying to say as little as possible in case they're thought to be culpable. Youre talking about pilot groundstaff, messages from traffic control, who should be punished if necessary?
Its a different aim but once the AAIB has completed its report the police can and should become involved if it's within their remit as described earlier, but to get most info its best to sit on hands for now.
I posted better a few hours ago
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 28th October 22:52
saaby93 said:
dr_gn said:
The fact that the Police are investigating the incident and are going to interview the pilot as part of their investigations, kind of makes anyone arguing the contrary look somewhat silly.
I can see the irony parrot whooshing by againIt's got to do with the Police because people lost their lives. I'd expect that whether the pilot involved was flying a Hawker Hunter or a stunt kite was/is pretty much totally irrelevant to them.
That's why the Police have been involved from the start, will interview the pilot, and will release their own report. Obviously they are working in conjunction with the AAIB, and obvously they may be involved in further action - who knows?
dr_gn said:
Errr, no. The discussion on this began because some people on here were saying "it's an air crash, what's it got to do with the Police?"
It's got to do with the Police because people lost their lives. I'd expect that whether the pilot involved was flying a Hawker Hunter or a stunt kite was pretty much totally irrelevant to them.
That's why the Police have been involved from the start, will interview the pilot, and will release their own report. Obviously they are working in conjunction with the AAIB, and obvously they may be involved in further action - who knows?
I still think youre playing strawman (not sure whether it's deliberate) posting something in a way that hasnt been said, arguing against it, then coming to a conclusion that no-ones argued against but as if they have.It's got to do with the Police because people lost their lives. I'd expect that whether the pilot involved was flying a Hawker Hunter or a stunt kite was pretty much totally irrelevant to them.
That's why the Police have been involved from the start, will interview the pilot, and will release their own report. Obviously they are working in conjunction with the AAIB, and obvously they may be involved in further action - who knows?
saaby93 said:
dr_gn said:
Errr, no. The discussion on this began because some people on here were saying "it's an air crash, what's it got to do with the Police?"
It's got to do with the Police because people lost their lives. I'd expect that whether the pilot involved was flying a Hawker Hunter or a stunt kite was pretty much totally irrelevant to them.
That's why the Police have been involved from the start, will interview the pilot, and will release their own report. Obviously they are working in conjunction with the AAIB, and obvously they may be involved in further action - who knows?
I still think youre playing strawman (not sure whether it's deliberate) posting something in a way that hasnt been said, arguing against it, then coming to a conclusion that no-ones argued against but as if they have.It's got to do with the Police because people lost their lives. I'd expect that whether the pilot involved was flying a Hawker Hunter or a stunt kite was pretty much totally irrelevant to them.
That's why the Police have been involved from the start, will interview the pilot, and will release their own report. Obviously they are working in conjunction with the AAIB, and obvously they may be involved in further action - who knows?
Here are a few examples:
SMB said:
Magog said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-343563...
Still not interviewed by the police, no mention if AAIB have spoken to him. One presumes not.
The quote on various news feeds was specific, 'by the police'. To be honest I don't see why at this stage he needs to be interviewed by police, the aaib need to do their investigation first, if any criminal aspect is suspected then it would be handed over. Until then let's leave the experts to do their stuff, they will almost certainly have been in contact with the pilot and we will know in due course.Still not interviewed by the police, no mention if AAIB have spoken to him. One presumes not.
Smollet said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Tbh I didn't read anything into "by the Police" - I simply assumed that would happen automatically a bit like I'd assume it would if you had a car accident.
Except it's not a car accident so why would they get involved? They have expertise in dealing with road accidents. I doubt very much they'd know where to start with an accident involving a plane SMB said:
tt601 said:
I would have thought the damage to hardware and surrounds would merit some form of official investigation and recording, for the formal record and presume subsequent cost of repairs etc.
What's to be gained at this point? unlike some road accidents, what happened is well known, the issue is why, and the police don't have the skills to answer that, the aaib do.I think you'll have to say what you mean by involvement then ask everyone else the same
Does it help to look at what happened and who was involved and when with a recent helicopter crash
Does it help to look at what happened and who was involved and when with a recent helicopter crash
wiki said:
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), which is responsible for investigating aircraft crashes in the United Kingdom, launched an investigation into the cause of the accident.[34] Its staff were on-site from 09:15 the next morning.[10] Assistance in the investigation was provided by the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation and the French Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile aviation incident investigation bodies (the manufacturers of the helicopter and its engine are based in Germany and France).[10][35] The American National Transportation Safety Board (representing the state of the manufacturer of the engines' FADEC controls), also provided assistance.[11]
The wreckage of the helicopter arrived at the AAIB's headquarters at Farnborough, Hampshire on 3 December.[36] The aircraft was not fitted with flight data recorders but the electronics fitted to the aircraft could contain data helpful in determining the cause of the accident.[37]
Police appealed for copies of any footage of the scene before or after the incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Glasgow_helicopter_crashThe wreckage of the helicopter arrived at the AAIB's headquarters at Farnborough, Hampshire on 3 December.[36] The aircraft was not fitted with flight data recorders but the electronics fitted to the aircraft could contain data helpful in determining the cause of the accident.[37]
Police appealed for copies of any footage of the scene before or after the incident.
dr_gn said:
So how do you know "he had a perfectly serviceable ejector seat, he did not even attempt to use it."?
Because the interim report from AAIB said so! The seat had been maintained in a serviceable condition and was found upon the arrival of the crash investigators to be armed, live and ready to fire at a nanosecond's notice.As for all the rest of the last few pages of bo11ocks, Saaby93 is 100% right, Scuffers is 99% right - the one point being, AAIB do not recommend prosecution even in cases of extreme pilot negligence, because that is not in their remot. The police have neither mandate nor competence to investigate this accident. They should be involved only so far as the AAIB wants them involved.
My earlier point still stands: any police investigation into this accident will inevitably prejudice the outcome of the AAIB investigation. To have two parallel investigations with two totally different remits, one of them being conducted by an agency wholly devoid of the specialist skills and knowledge required to do so, is a total and utter nonsense.
As for the suggestions of premeditation or otherwise criminal motive behind this accident, what you're saying is not only wholly without foundation, but highly defamatory towards a poor man who's having a hard enough job rebuilding his life without you adding your despicable, vituperative garbage to this "debate". Those who have made that inference should be profoundly ashamed of themselves. There is precisely ZERO suspicion of any criminality on Andy Hill's part. He flew that aeroplane with great skill, and once the accident became unavoidable, stayed with the aeroplane and steered it away from the Ricardo fuel dump. That is professionalism of a height verging on heroism - not criminality!
There is also absolutely no inevitability that the police (or even AAIB) will interview Andy Hill. Chances are, he doesn't remember a bloody thing about it.
RYH64E said:
acrobatic stunt
This immediately invalidates anything you have to say on this matter. If you can't tell the difference between "acrobatic" and "aerobatic" and between "stunt" and "manoeuvre", you have no business commenting on this thread.RoverP6B said:
dr_gn said:
So how do you know "he had a perfectly serviceable ejector seat, he did not even attempt to use it."?
Because the interim report from AAIB said so! The seat had been maintained in a serviceable condition and was found upon the arrival of the crash investigators to be armed, live and ready to fire at a nanosecond's notice.dr_gn said:
Scuffers said:
dr_gn said:
You said if the pilot had intent he'd have to be suicidal. How do you know - for certain - that he wasn't suicidal, but survived?
Yes, it seems highly unlikely, but not impossible.
If you didn't know better, would you have put money on a pilot surviving that crash?
Therefore why is my point "ignorant and stupid"?
if he was trying to crash and NOT kill himself, he had a perfectly serviceable ejector seat, he did not even attempt to use it.Yes, it seems highly unlikely, but not impossible.
If you didn't know better, would you have put money on a pilot surviving that crash?
Therefore why is my point "ignorant and stupid"?
the fact is survived was nothing short of a miracle, certainly well outside some crazy 'plan'
so unless you're now suggesting the pilot was a nut-job, I don't really see where you're heading?
1)So you appear to be saying that since he didn't try to eject, it implies he *was* suicidal? Really?
2)The preliminary AAIB report states that:
"The investigation continues to determine if the pilot attempted to initiate ejection or if the canopy and pilot’s seat were liberated as a result of impact damage to the cockpit"
So how do you know "he had a perfectly serviceable ejector seat, he did not even attempt to use it."?
RoverP6B said:
As for the suggestions of premeditation or otherwise criminal motive behind this accident, what you're saying is not only wholly without foundation, but highly defamatory towards a poor man who's having a hard enough job rebuilding his life without you adding your despicable, vituperative garbage to this "debate". Those who have made that inference should be profoundly ashamed of themselves. There is precisely ZERO suspicion of any criminality on Andy Hill's part. He flew that aeroplane with great skill, and once the accident became unavoidable, stayed with the aeroplane and steered it away from the Ricardo fuel dump. That is professionalism of a height verging on heroism - not criminality!
Where exactly did I suggest that? How many times did I qualify what was written by saying "in theory" or that I wasn't saying it was the case with the Shoreham crash? I was very careful to use general examples and "what if?" scenarios during this discussion about if and when Police should be involved in an air crash investigation. If you want to go down the track of invoking your own faux outrage that's your problem. However, pretty much all your assertions there are your own opinion backed up by precisely no facts. You even trot out the usual rubbish about a pilot steering his aircraft away from a fuel dump/school/orphanage/nuclear power station (delete as appropriate), again with no evidence whatsoever that it was actually the case.
RoverP6B said:
There is also absolutely no inevitability that the police (or even AAIB) will interview Andy Hill. Chances are, he doesn't remember a bloody thing about it.
Seriously? That's absolutely laughable. Take one example mentioned earlier regarding the ejector seat. The preliminary investigation didn't establish whether an attempt at ejection was made. What would be a really good way of establishing this? Maybe, perhaps, interviewing the pilot?"Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz who is leading the police investigation into the Shoreham air show crash said: "The interview of the pilot forms an integral part of the police investigation, but at this time his fitness for interview has not been confirmed."
from the Telegraph.
RoverP6B said:
RYH64E said:
acrobatic stunt
This immediately invalidates anything you have to say on this matter. If you can't tell the difference between "acrobatic" and "aerobatic" and between "stunt" and "manoeuvre", you have no business commenting on this thread.RoverP6B said:
There is precisely ZERO suspicion of any criminality on Andy Hill's part. He flew that aeroplane with great skill, and once the accident became unavoidable, stayed with the aeroplane and steered it away from the Ricardo fuel dump. That is professionalism of a height verging on heroism - not criminality!
Can you post a link to this report? And what does it say about the altitude that the climb started?dr_gn said:
saaby93 said:
dr_gn said:
The fact that the Police are investigating the incident and are going to interview the pilot as part of their investigations, kind of makes anyone arguing the contrary look somewhat silly.
I can see the irony parrot whooshing by againIt's got to do with the Police because people lost their lives. I'd expect that whether the pilot involved was flying a Hawker Hunter or a stunt kite was/is pretty much totally irrelevant to them.
That's why the Police have been involved from the start, will interview the pilot, and will release their own report. Obviously they are working in conjunction with the AAIB, and obvously they may be involved in further action - who knows?
charlie7777 said:
dr_gn said:
saaby93 said:
dr_gn said:
The fact that the Police are investigating the incident and are going to interview the pilot as part of their investigations, kind of makes anyone arguing the contrary look somewhat silly.
I can see the irony parrot whooshing by againIt's got to do with the Police because people lost their lives. I'd expect that whether the pilot involved was flying a Hawker Hunter or a stunt kite was/is pretty much totally irrelevant to them.
That's why the Police have been involved from the start, will interview the pilot, and will release their own report. Obviously they are working in conjunction with the AAIB, and obvously they may be involved in further action - who knows?
Look at what I posted about Clutha to understand levels of involvement re AAIB and police
and what I said about him arguing against himself as if its against someone else
It goes to create these couple of pages of meaninglessness see strawman
However if setting these things out helps everyone see how it works thats great
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 29th October 10:23
From BBC Website:
Shoreham air disaster: Anger at pilot interview delay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-346664...
Shoreham air disaster: Anger at pilot interview delay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-346664...
Bluedot said:
From BBC Website:
Shoreham air disaster: Anger at pilot interview delay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-346664...
Bascially he is too blame and not wanting to face things. That's what the final decision will be from the investigation board, we all know it. No need for him to be interviewed.Shoreham air disaster: Anger at pilot interview delay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-346664...
Old pilot in old plane with too few hours in it doing stunts over a built up area.
It's as plane, sorry, plain as the nose on your face, but he's not to blame, the people who encouraged him to do such without considering the issues arriving from it are.
Planes doing things to please crowds at low level are always at risk rather than at 30 000 feet.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff