Crash at Shoreham Air show

Author
Discussion

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
Hypothetically, what if an apparent "accident" is actually a deliberate act? (e.g. the recent German Wings crash)?

Hypothetically, what if a pilot has some kind of psychosis (e.g. the recent German Wings crash)?

Who establishes if there was any intent whether through a medical issue or something else irrelevant to the aircraft or circumstances of the crash? Presumably the Police, not the AAIB.
The AAIB. At which point, it would be handed over to the police.

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
dr_gn said:
Hypothetically, what if an apparent "accident" is actually a deliberate act? (e.g. the recent German Wings crash)?

Hypothetically, what if a pilot has some kind of psychosis (e.g. the recent German Wings crash)?

Who establishes if there was any intent whether through a medical issue or something else irrelevant to the aircraft or circumstances of the crash? Presumably the Police, not the AAIB.
The AAIB. At which point, it would be handed over to the police.
So if - again - hypothetically - it turned out to be some bizarre terrorist attack, or some psychotic tendency, the pilot would be free to go, leave the country, commit another crime or whatever, until the AAIB had decided it might be a good idea to ask the Police to arrest him?

There surely has to be some police involvement at an earlier stage if only to eliminate the highly unlikely, but possible, circumstances of the crash.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
So if - again - hypothetically - it turned out to be some bizarre terrorist attack, or some psychotic tendency, the pilot would be free to go, leave the country, commit another crime or whatever, until the AAIB had decided it might be a good idea to ask the Police to arrest him?

There surely has to be some police involvement at an earlier stage if only to eliminate the highly unlikely, but possible, circumstances of the crash.
The whole point of the AAIB is that they are the body best qualified to find the cause of the crash, whether terrorist attack, psychotic tendency or anything else. Why would the police know better than them?

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
So if - again - hypothetically - it turned out to be some bizarre terrorist attack, or some psychotic tendency, the pilot would be free to go, leave the country, commit another crime or whatever, until the AAIB had decided it might be a good idea to ask the Police to arrest him?

There surely has to be some police involvement at an earlier stage if only to eliminate the highly unlikely, but possible, circumstances of the crash.
You're suggesting keeping the pilot in custody for the entire two years or whatever the AAIB will take to complete their investigation? Then, when it's found out not to be, he gets released?

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
I wonder if people would be so sympathetic if 11 bystanders, completely unconnected to the event, had been killed by a young lad in a chavved up Vauxhall Corsa at some Max Power rally?

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
Hypothetically, what if an apparent "accident" is actually a deliberate act? (e.g. the recent German Wings crash)?

Hypothetically, what if a pilot has some kind of psychosis (e.g. the recent German Wings crash)?

Who establishes if there was any intent whether through a medical issue or something else irrelevant to the aircraft or circumstances of the crash? Presumably the Police, not the AAIB.
If the pilot wished to kill himself he did a rather bad job of it. If you're going to kill yourself you may as well go in vertically. I don't know the full remit/powers of the AAIB but if the pilot's mental state contributed to the accident then I'd expect a body with 'accident investigation' in its name to be able to factor medical/mental conditions into their findings.

Perhaps a reason, if the police haven't been involved in the investigation, is because it's not a police matter because they know nothing about investigating air accidents? Just a thought.

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
dr_gn said:
So if - again - hypothetically - it turned out to be some bizarre terrorist attack, or some psychotic tendency, the pilot would be free to go, leave the country, commit another crime or whatever, until the AAIB had decided it might be a good idea to ask the Police to arrest him?

There surely has to be some police involvement at an earlier stage if only to eliminate the highly unlikely, but possible, circumstances of the crash.
You're suggesting keeping the pilot in custody for the entire two years or whatever the AAIB will take to complete their investigation? Then, when it's found out not to be, he gets released?
No, obviously I'm suggesting they question him in case there is something completely unrelated to the AAIB investigation that could have been relevant to the deaths of the people involved. OK, an aircraft was involved, but the AAIB surely arent qualified to investigate *all* possible reasons for the crash?

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I was replying to dr-gn's comments about hypothetical suicide.

anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm trying to be dispassionately level-headed and logical. You want to cry 'criminal'. Let the AAIB do its job and then we will take it from there. If there was a 'criminal element' then of course the police will be involved, that is what they do. At present it is an air accident investigation.


ETA: Rather than bashing away on a forum, how about calling the police and asking 'Why haven't you interviewed the pilot?'

Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 26th October 19:57

eldar

21,614 posts

195 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
No, obviously I'm suggesting they question him in case there is something completely unrelated to the AAIB investigation that could have been relevant to the deaths of the people involved. OK, an aircraft was involved, but the AAIB surely arent qualified to investigate *all* possible reasons for the crash?
Specialist bodies, like AAIB and H&S Inspectorate will conduct the investigation, call in other specialists as required - including the police to assist. That does not preclude police investigation if thought necessary by the involved parties. It may or may not end in prosecution depending on the evidence.

The Police do not have the budget or expertise to reassemble a plane from several thousand damaged pieces.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
dr_gn said:
No, obviously I'm suggesting they question him in case there is something completely unrelated to the AAIB investigation that could have been relevant to the deaths of the people involved. OK, an aircraft was involved, but the AAIB surely arent qualified to investigate *all* possible reasons for the crash?
Yep, it's what they're for. If it was pilot action that caused it, they will determine that and report that. Whether that action was criminally negligent - or a deliberate criminal action - is then up to the police.

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Rather than bashing away on a forum, how about calling the police and asking 'Why haven't you interviewed the pilot?'

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
False and illogical.

You want an answer but nothing here is good enough for you. I have therefore come up with the entirely reasonable suggestion that you ASK the very people who can GIVE you the answer you crave. But this suggestion is not good enough for you. Curious.

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Perhaps I can summarise it thus:

'I demand to know why the police are not involved!'

'Ask them'

'Waaaaaaahh!!!!'

Chrisgr31

13,440 posts

254 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Simpo Two said:
If I was a relative of a victim I hope I would have the vision and calmness of thought to file it under 'accident' and not expect the bloke to be sued or imprisoned.
This stands out like a breath of fresh air from the general frothing of the mouth going on here at the moment.

Our string-'em-up culture of punishment for mistakes, not involving recklessness, is all wrong.
I'd agree with this and many other accidents as well. The reality is very few people set out to crash whether in a plane or other means of transport. We all make mistakes and usually get away with them, unfortunately on occasions we don't. Obviously there are occasions where someone is so reckless an accident was obvious but in many cases accidents are mistakes and people will learn from them.


dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
dr_gn said:
No, obviously I'm suggesting they question him in case there is something completely unrelated to the AAIB investigation that could have been relevant to the deaths of the people involved. OK, an aircraft was involved, but the AAIB surely arent qualified to investigate *all* possible reasons for the crash?
Yep, it's what they're for. If it was pilot action that caused it, they will determine that and report that. Whether that action was criminally negligent - or a deliberate criminal action - is then up to the police.
OK, but for the terrorist aspect (which in this case seems totally irrelevant, but others maybe not), then the person effectively has several months to flee the country until the AAIB find something incriminating?

dr_gn

16,140 posts

183 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
dr_gn said:
Hypothetically, what if an apparent "accident" is actually a deliberate act? (e.g. the recent German Wings crash)?

Hypothetically, what if a pilot has some kind of psychosis (e.g. the recent German Wings crash)?

Who establishes if there was any intent whether through a medical issue or something else irrelevant to the aircraft or circumstances of the crash? Presumably the Police, not the AAIB.
If the pilot wished to kill himself he did a rather bad job of it. If you're going to kill yourself you may as well go in vertically. I don't know the full remit/powers of the AAIB but if the pilot's mental state contributed to the accident then I'd expect a body with 'accident investigation' in its name to be able to factor medical/mental conditions into their findings.

Perhaps a reason, if the police haven't been involved in the investigation, is because it's not a police matter because they know nothing about investigating air accidents? Just a thought.
Here's another thought: Maybe it's in fact that the doctors treating him who will say if or when the police can interview him, not the media, or someone on a forum. He may well have restrictions placed upon him even after being discharged from hospital, but that's not to say the police don't have an interest or intention to interview him.

You apear to be basing your comments on what the media have fed you, for a specific incident rather than consiering the potential bigger picture: If the pilot was a suicide bomber, with no history of mental illness, and he survived a crash while killing hundreds of people how would the AAIB possibly determine that he was in fact a terrorist rather than someone with medical or psychological issues? That's why I assume the Police need to be involved, even if it's briefly, at the begining of an investigation.

ETA talking of media:

"A Sussex police spokeswoman said: “The pilot’s condition is improving. Police and investigators from the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), who are conducting parallel investigations, are looking to interview the pilot as soon as possible.”"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/10/sho...








Edited by dr_gn on Monday 26th October 21:09

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Surely in the car crash example, the steps the police / CPS are taking is

1) Find out what happened
2) Determine if something criminal has been done
3) Decide whether to prosecute

They don't try to decide if a crime has been committed before establishing some workiong hypotheses for what happened, and in this instance that's what the AAIB are doing. The police may get involved in things that fall outside their direct expertise, but that's usually where there's no-one else able to do it.

However; IMHO the main reason the AAIB will want to be left alone to conduct their enquiry without the police conducting interviews is one of philosophical priority; if the Police priority is establishing whether there are charges to be brought, then by contrast the AAIB priority is establishing whether there are steps to be taken to improve air safety.

I've no idea what the Pilot's mental state is at this point, but I can't imagine interviewing him to establish whether there are criminal charges to be brought will help elicit clear, unbiased information about what really happened. The priority will be to establish whether there was a problem with altimeter settings, or not enough time on type, or misheard radio calls, or onset of g-loc at the top of the loop, and therefore whether there should be a change in process and procedure; with the expectation that, unless there was some unlikely malicious intent behind the event, the facts pointing towards some less contentious criminal charge will be still be evident throughout the investigation.

Edited by Mave on Monday 26th October 21:43

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So you want to prioritise finding out whether to punish for someone for doing something they are highly unlikely to have the opportunity to do again, over finding out whether there is a systematic problem which may lead to more people dying in the future?

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Monday 26th October 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think that if you were being interviewed by an organisation with a reputation for focussing on preventing recurrence, and for only for supporting criminal charges in situations where you had clearly acted negligently, your responses may be more open and honest than if you were being interviewed by an organisation who was looking to see if a crime had been committed, and perhaps whose level of enthusiasm in securing a charge was unknown.

Take a look at thread about how you respond when pulled over for speeding, and the number of people who would be economical with the truth to avoid getting a speeding fine. Would you respond differently if you felt confident that the main reason for getting pulled over was so that they could look at ways to introduce variable speed limits, improve lane discipline education, and would only charge you if you were tailgating someone at 100mph in the wet whilst on the phone?


anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why? Is it more important to secure a conviction, or to prevent recurrences of an incident?