Crash at Shoreham Air show

[hidetheelephants]

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.

More likely the coroner for an inquest, or given the death toll a judge in charge of an FAI. Much the same has happened with the bin motor and police helicopter crashes in Glasgow.

[Catweazle]

If the AAIB have a similar remit to other investigatory bodies then the publication of their report will be delayed until after any prosecution has finished and evidence given to them will not be used in the trial.

[Dr Jekyll]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The purpose of the AAIB investigation is to find the cause in order to reduce the chance of a recurrence, the purpose of the police investigation is to find someone to prosecute. A comment such as 'perhaps in hindsight I should have done such and such differently' is relevant to an AAIB investigation, but obviously not something you dare say to the police. Which is why what is said to the AAIB is not usually admissable as evidence in a criminal trial.

[Mave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[dr_gn]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If a recurrence of a tragedy was due to a pilot subsequently committing another, similar, crime, then it would probably be more important to secure a conviction.

I'm not suggesting for a second this applies to the Shoreham case, I'm arguing that "in general" Police involvement would be a formality even if that involvement is very brief.

[Mave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But for what purpose- to punish him, or to prevent recurrences?

[The Wookie]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You've probably answered your own question then. There is a precedent of the Police (or in the case of TWA Flight 800 the FBI) being involved and interviewing at an early stage after an air accident where there is evidence that it was a deliberate act or an act of terrorism, even though in some cases it turned out not to be the case.

If the Police Investigation parallel investigation turned up evidence that it was anything other than negligence (for example if the pilot had terrorist links or a history of mental illness like the German Wings pilot) then no doubt they would be taking a more active role. Presumably it hasn't, so perhaps the Police have decided not to risk interfering with the AAIB investigation and instead are communicating with them and will rely their subsequent report when it comes to deciding if any charges are to be laid.

[Bluedot]

The Wookie said:

You've probably answered your own question then. There is a precedent of the Police (or in the case of TWA Flight 800 the FBI) being involved and interviewing at an early stage after an air accident where there is evidence that it was a deliberate act or an act of terrorism, even though in some cases it turned out not to be the case.

If the Police Investigation parallel investigation turned up evidence that it was anything other than negligence (for example if the pilot had terrorist links or a history of mental illness like the German Wings pilot) then no doubt they would be taking a more active role. Presumably it hasn't, so perhaps the Police have decided not to risk interfering with the AAIB investigation and instead are communicating with them and will rely their subsequent report when it comes to deciding if any charges are to be laid.

Not that I pretend to know anything about these sort of subjects, the post above seems the most sensible and likely way the investigation(s) are proceeding.

[dr_gn]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What would you think?

[NEEP]

The AAIB don't have a record of fully cooperating with Police investigations into fatal aircraft accidents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...

[Mave]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't know what you think and I don't want to put words into your mouth. That's why I asked.

[EskimoArapaho]

NEEP said:

The AAIB don't have a record of fully cooperating with Police investigations into fatal aircraft accidents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...

Interesting and surprising to me. Pretty scummy behaviour from the AAIB/BALPA.

[Bonefish Blues]

OTOH I read it and completely understood their position.

[Mave]

Bonefish Blues said:

OTOH I read it and completely understood their position.

Agreed.

[aeropilot]

Mave said:

Bonefish Blues said:

OTOH I read it and completely understood their position.

Agreed.

Indeed.

[mybrainhurts]

When can we expect the Spanish Inquisition to be called in...?

[ali_kat]

RYH64E said:

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?

A) A young lad wouldn't have had decades of training behind him
B) A young lad wouldn't have had decades of experience behind him
C) A young lad wouldn't have been doing it as his job
D) The plane wasn't chavved up
E) There wouldn't be any unconnected bystanders that close to a Max Power rally

But when Rally Drivers have had incidents of their cars gping off the course and hitting bystanders, yes, people have been that sympathetic.

[RoverP6B]

RYH64E said:

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?

Several of the Shoreham fatalities WERE connected to the event, spectating from an unauthorised site right by the road. If they hadn't been freeloading, they'd be alive today.

As for all the rest - LET THE AAIB GET ON WITH ITS JOB! Until it reports, there can be no question of an ongoing parallel criminal investigation - and, what's more, the AAIB does not like its reports being used in prosecutions (although the enormously damaging verdict in Rogers v Hoyle did make AAIB reports admissible, alas). As has also been pointed out, such an investigation would risk prejudicing the outcome of the AAIB report...

Whether the AAIB investigation will ever be fully concluded rather than just being closed inconclusively is doubtful. Andy Hill would be well advised to keep his mouth shut (assuming he remembers anything).

Furthermore, pilots should NEVER be prosecuted for their actions in command of an aircraft in a generalist civilian court. If a prosecution must be brought, then it should be done in a specialist aviation court, wherein judge, counsel and jury must ALL hold a PPL-IR as a basic minimum.The shameful prosecution, wrongful conviction and subsequent suicide of BA's Captain Glen Stewart, when his FO and FE were both out of the cockpit (down with food poisoning), so he was on his own, in fog, with a malfunctioning autopilot, proved this point conclusively. That case should NEVER have been brought. Stewart's actions were nothing less than heroic, yet he was scapegoated for setting off a few car alarms: his career, livelihood and ultimately his life were destroyed - all because the judge and jury didn't have a bloody clue what's involved in flying an aeroplane of any kind, let alone a 747 in such impossible conditions.

Cmoose, can I ask what your qualification in the field of aviation is? It really does appear that you don't have a bloody clue. Even if Andy Hill answers AAIB and not police, his evidence could still land him in court because of Rogers v Hoyle. At the moment, there is neither evidence nor suspicion of criminality, and as such it is imperative that any criminal investigation be axed until such time as AAIB has reported. The conduct of Sussex Police and the CAA over this matter has been nothing short of disgraceful.

EskimoArapaho said:

NEEP said:

The AAIB don't have a record of fully cooperating with Police investigations into fatal aircraft accidents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...

Real professional integrity from the AAIB & BALPA.

Fixed that for you.

[Scuffers]

EskimoArapaho said:

NEEP said:

The AAIB don't have a record of fully cooperating with Police investigations into fatal aircraft accidents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...

Interesting and surprising to me. Pretty scummy behaviour from the AAIB/BALPA.

did you actually read the link?

there is a very solid case for NOT letting the CPS go mad with this stuff, if you do, then people will not report/provide witness statements to AAB etc for fear of prosecution further down the line.

in this case, the judge forced them to hand it over:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...

then delayed:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/islands/...

then upheld:

http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/06/22/judge-gran...

not sure what's happened since then?

[anonymous-user]

EskimoArapaho said:

NEEP said:

The AAIB don't have a record of fully cooperating with Police investigations into fatal aircraft accidents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o...

Interesting and surprising to me. Pretty scummy behaviour from the AAIB/BALPA.

"But lawyers for the British Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) cited a near miss at Schipol which resulted in the prosecution of a number of air traffic controllers. They said that meant a 50% reduction in the number of incidents voluntarily reported at the airport in following years.
Balpa said the Crown Office had failed to show why the release of information was strictly necessary, and had failed to take into account any adverse impact on future accident investigations."

From the article.

Makes the reasoning pretty clear to me.

The last thing you want in the aviation industry is a situation where people don't feel safe in reporting events that have happened for fear of prosecution.