Crash at Shoreham Air show

[dr_gn]

Speed 3 said:

(as opposed to simply saying stop all comparable activities).

The CAA have done a pretty good job of that already.

[LittleEnus]

Police have been awarded the right to see cockpit footage..

http://news.sky.com/story/police-win-right-to-see-...

[El Guapo]

Why do the police have to go to the High Court to request AAIB info?
I would have thought that the AAIB findings would constitute evidence and ought to be available to the police as a matter of course.

[Dr Jekyll]

El Guapo said:

Why do the police have to go to the High Court to request AAIB info?
I would have thought that the AAIB findings would constitute evidence and ought to be available to the police as a matter of course.

Certainly not. The AAIB couldn't do their job if everyone vaguely involved with the incident gave 'no comment' interviews to avoid risk of prosecution. This decision will hamper future investigations as cockpit cameras are hastily removed from aircraft.

[Caruso]

LittleEnus said:

Police have been awarded the right to see cockpit footage..

http://news.sky.com/story/police-win-right-to-see-...

But not the interviews.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-374958...

[BrabusMog]

Dr Jekyll said:

El Guapo said:

Why do the police have to go to the High Court to request AAIB info?
I would have thought that the AAIB findings would constitute evidence and ought to be available to the police as a matter of course.

Certainly not. The AAIB couldn't do their job if everyone vaguely involved with the incident gave 'no comment' interviews to avoid risk of prosecution. This decision will hamper future investigations as cockpit cameras are hastily removed from aircraft.

Couldn't there be a legal requirement for that camera to be there?

I have to say that some of the aircraft enthusiasts on this thread have a staggeringly defensive attitude to all of this. Trot out the lines of "this airshow will never happen again" etc etc all you like, but it's a bit upsetting to see how indifferent you can be to the loss of human life, that some are strongly defending the pilot before your precious AAIB report is out in public.

[anonymous-user]

BrabusMog said:

I have to say that some of the aircraft enthusiasts on this thread have a staggeringly defensive attitude to all of this. Trot out the lines of "this airshow will never happen again" etc etc all you like, but it's a bit upsetting to see how indifferent you can be to the loss of human life, that some are strongly defending the pilot before your precious AAIB report is out in public.

+1

There seems to be an attitude of protecting pilots, aircraft and air shows at all costs.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome/verdict of this incident.

[Eric Mc]

The main people who are making a noise about this are the friends and relatives of those who died - understandably.

However, I still think that the AAIB need to complete their investigation first BEFORE the police can begin whatever work they need to do.

[IforB]

There is a very valid reason behind not passing on interviews to the Police for the potential purpose of prosecution.

Aviation safety and learning lessons relies very heavily on people being open and honest about what happened and why. This happens because we operate in an open and no blame culture, that is absolutely essential and one of the primary reasons that aviation in the UK has a safety record that is frankly astonishing.

When you introduce the idea that whatever you say to the AAIB is going likely to be used to prosecute and punish you, then you will immediately get the issue of people clamming up and refusing to talk to the investigators and you end up with the adversarial approach followed by the Police.

Whilst many people have died, the principles of open and honest discussion is too important a principle to allow to be destroyed. Families of the dead will of course want prosecution. That may still happen, but it won't be with all of the information available to the AAIB.

Had the pilot died, then this would be moot and there wouldn't be the clamour, but this is an unusual situation in that the pilot survived against all of the odds.

I understand both sides of this, but I would be very uncomfortable if the AAIB were forced to hand over information they gained in good faith under the aegis of a no blame culture.

Safety is no accident and this is one of the guiding principles behind that.

[steve-5snwi]

Lets assume the police investigate and find the pilot guilty, does that then set a precedent for any other crash, so if when I'm stationary on the m25 and an Airbus hits me on the approach to Heathrow because the pilot wasn't looking at his altitude he could potentially be prosecuted for manslaughter ?

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Of course the incident should be investigated, and obviously that will involve studying cockpit footage if available. But that's the AAIB's job, not the police. The object should be to identify the cause and so reduce the chance of a recurrence, not simply to find someone to prosecute.

[HoHoHo]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So a pilot can be negligent and it's ok but a car driver can be neglegent and he goes to jail?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that

What's the difference?

[Mave]

HoHoHo said:

So a pilot can be negligent and it's ok but a car driver can be neglegent and he goes to jail?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that

What's the difference?

In the majority of cases where a driver causes a crash and people die, the driver isn't even charged with DWDCA, let alone go to jail.

[IforB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What do you define as a criminal act? Where do you draw the line there?

Is it about intent to harm? Is it that someone made a serious error of judgement and the net result was people were killed by accident?

You also misunderstand my point, I do not say that criminal prosecution shouldn't occur if warranted, it is simply that if information was gleaned by the AAIB under their investigation, then should that information be routinely and freely handed over to the Police for prosecution purposes, then this would undermine the idea of open and honest reporting.

I have no issue with the judicial review to decide upon the release of information and the idea that the Police are not able to simply access it, that is eminently sensible as there may well be times when an accident investigation uncovers potential criminal acts that warrant Police involvement and prosecution.

What I was trying to explain to people not involved in the industry is the reason why information is not simply released by the AAIB and why this current system works. It is not a comment on whether it should be changed, but the ideals behind why we need such a system in the first place.

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Implying that I the police didn't have access to the cockpit footage nobody would review it.

[Dr Jekyll]

HoHoHo said:

So a pilot can be negligent and it's ok but a car driver can be neglegent and he goes to jail?

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that

What's the difference?

That's not what happens. A BA 747 pilot who made a mistake approaching Heathrow in very difficult circumstances was convicted of negligently endangering his aircraft even though there was no damage or injury to anyone or anything.

Compare that with the Glasgow bin lorry crash where the CPS initially announced there would be no criminal charges and only changed their minds AFTER the inquiry brought the drivers medical history to light.

[IforB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think this can be best dealt with the phrase "aye, whatever pal."

You appear to like arguing for some reason. Not sure why, but I'm not going to get into a row over something like this, when I know exactly what I meant and have explained it.

[aeropilot]

BrabusMog said:

but it's a bit upsetting to see how indifferent you can be to the loss of human life, that some are strongly defending the pilot before your precious AAIB report is out in public.

Stop being a drama queen ffs.

And people are only defending the right of the pilot's 'innocent until proven guilty' which until the AAIB report is finished and published, no one is in any position (including the Police, or rather the CPS, because it won't be the Police making the decision) to make a decision on that as the 'facts', not heresay, will be in the AAIB report.

What is so difficult for you to understand that rather simple fact?

[RYH64E]

aeropilot said:

BrabusMog said:

but it's a bit upsetting to see how indifferent you can be to the loss of human life, that some are strongly defending the pilot before your precious AAIB report is out in public.

Stop being a drama queen ffs.

And people are only defending the right of the pilot's 'innocent until proven guilty' which until the AAIB report is finished and published, no one is in any position (including the Police, or rather the CPS, because it won't be the Police making the decision) to make a decision on that as the 'facts', not heresay, will be in the AAIB report.

What is so difficult for you to understand that rather simple fact?

He's unlikely to be proven guilty if none of the evidence is made available to the Police/CPS.

[Eric Mc]

Dr Jekyll said:

That's not what happens. A BA 747 pilot who made a mistake approaching Heathrow in very difficult circumstances was convicted of negligently endangering his aircraft even though there was no damage or injury to anyone or anything.

And that episode had a very unfortunate end a number of years later.