Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
Mave said:
Nope. The law is the law, but it is there for a purpose, and generally in aviation that purpose is safety. The laws help achieve safety, but they do not neccesarily result in safety on their own.
This event was entertainment pure and simple, it served no useful purpose and the majority of those killed weren't even spectators. If safety was of paramount importance then it wouldn't heve been held in the first place, and certainly not anywhere near a busy road. The view of most posters in this thread seems to be 'but we really like airplanes, and s
t happens'.anonymous said:
[redacted]
OK, I'll try again.If I'm at the urinal having a wee, I don't want someone else weeing at the same time.
I want them to wait, not because my wee is particularly relevant to them, but because I'm using the urinal.
If a forensic team is at the secene of a crime, would you be surprised that they wanted to finish their investiagtion before the clean up team started, even though the clean up team wouldn't be interested in the forensic report?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The fact that you're suggesting the AAIB need to justify continuing to operate according to their status quo, rather than the police needing to justify changing it, suggests you ARE arguing for the police to take priority and also are only seeing this one way.Mave said:
I disagree. People tend to brush their mistakes under the carpet, especially if they think (potentially incorrectly) that its unimportant. Concern over criminal investigation, disciplinary action, or just a good old bking all lead to cover ups.
I would totally disagree with that with regards to aviation.king all lead to cover ups.You are encouraged to to highlight your mistakes, so others can learn from it. If you make a mistake, try to hide it and are found out, there's a good chance you'll loose your job. Our human factors and error management training place integrity very high on the list.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The concept of "encouraging criminality" implies it is malicious rather than accidental.If you look through the history of air safety, the vast majority of incidents are caused by a combination of events and circumstances which, individually appear quite innocuous; not one big malicious crime. And the largest deterrent against malicious crime isn't usually prison time, its death.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The AAIB investigation is hardly irrelevant, it is the best way of finding the cause of the crash. Unless there is some evidence of a crime, interrogating the pilot in the hope of finding an offence isn't a criminal investigation, it's a fishing trip.In J Leeming's book 'Road accidents, prevent or punish?' the former traffic engineer related the case of a junction where a number of accidents had occurred due to drivers failing to stop at a stop sign. Police were stationed at the location to flag down offenders, not to issue tickets but simply to ask them why they had contravened the sign. The local press were outraged to hear that criminals were being allowed to get away with their crimes. But the police did manage to ascertain that the road layout made the stop sign, and particularly the line, very difficult to see in certain circumstances. The road layout was slightly changed and the accidents ceased.
In this case there certainly were offences being committed, but preventing further accidents was regarded as a higher priority.
eccles said:
Mave said:
I disagree. People tend to brush their mistakes under the carpet, especially if they think (potentially incorrectly) that its unimportant. Concern over criminal investigation, disciplinary action, or just a good old bking all lead to cover ups.
I would totally disagree with that with regards to aviation.king all lead to cover ups.You are encouraged to to highlight your mistakes, so others can learn from it. If you make a mistake, try to hide it and are found out, there's a good chance you'll loose your job. Our human factors and error management training place integrity very high on the list.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You stated "knowledge that you'll be protected from prosecution - it may encourage criminality."I interpreted that as "If you know that you'll be protected from prosecution, it may encourage criminality".
That is the point I responded to. If that wasn't the point you were making, you did not state it clearly.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
FTFY.The AAIB's remit is very clear: to establish the facts of an accident and to make recommendations as to how a reoccurence of that accident can be avoided. It does not seek to blame. In fact, the use of AAIB evidence in a criminal trial makes the AAIB's job a lot harder, as pilots may no longer speak so frankly as once they did. There is no suspicion at present of any criminal negligence on Andy Hill's part: there should not be any criminal investigation until the AAIB has reported (and even then, if their report does not indicate pilot negligence as the cause of the accident, there should not be any criminal investigation). It is abundantly clear that the parallel pursuit of a criminal investigation will prejudice the investigation. If it was ultimately proved that the accident was Andy Hill's fault, criminal charges could be brought at any time: there is not, as far as I am aware, a statute of limitations on this matter.
Anyway, as I said before: let the AAIB investigators get on with their jobs. Everyone else needs to STFU - CAA and Sussex Police included.
RoverP6B said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
FTFY.The AAIB's remit is very clear: to establish the facts of an accident and to make recommendations as to how a reoccurence of that accident can be avoided. It does not seek to blame. In fact, the use of AAIB evidence in a criminal trial makes the AAIB's job a lot harder, as pilots may no longer speak so frankly as once they did. There is no suspicion at present of any criminal negligence on Andy Hill's part: there should not be any criminal investigation until the AAIB has reported (and even then, if their report does not indicate pilot negligence as the cause of the accident, there should not be any criminal investigation). It is abundantly clear that the parallel pursuit of a criminal investigation will prejudice the investigation. If it was ultimately proved that the accident was Andy Hill's fault, criminal charges could be brought at any time: there is not, as far as I am aware, a statute of limitations on this matter.
Anyway, as I said before: let the AAIB investigators get on with their jobs. Everyone else needs to STFU - CAA and Sussex Police included.
RYH64E said:
Mave said:
Nope. The law is the law, but it is there for a purpose, and generally in aviation that purpose is safety. The laws help achieve safety, but they do not neccesarily result in safety on their own.
This event was entertainment pure and simple, it served no useful purpose and the majority of those killed weren't even spectators. If safety was of paramount importance then it wouldn't heve been held in the first place, and certainly not anywhere near a busy road. The view of most posters in this thread seems to be 'but we really like airplanes, and s
t happens'.t happens"Bonefish Blues said:
Do you have a linky to the 747 case?
Quite a few interesting links here: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ba+captain+glen+...As for my qualification - though I never got round to doing PPL, I've been involved in aviation at various levels for many years - gliding, flying clubs, an historic aircraft museum, airline ops management, latterly working on the Harrier at BAe Kingston. I've rubbed shoulders with and often befriended many truly great airmen, including Handley Page test pilots Hedley Hazelden and Spud Murphy, Hawker test pilot Bill Bedford and my old flying instructor Ted Girdler (who sadly expired suddenly while displaying an L29 at Eastbourne in 2000). Eric Garland, MBE, MC, one of our greatest war heroes, was another of my pilots at Air Anglia - I still regret having to call him into work on a significant wedding anniversary of his when all my other pilots were either out of hours or off sick... Hazel summarised his approach to airmanship in the following words: "There are three ways of flying this aeroplane! The company way, the CAA's opinion of the way it should be done, and my f*****g way!". He was an excellent pilot, who proved his mettle as a test pilot with several forced crash-landings from which fatalities could easily have been sustained in lesser hands. I'd have flown to the gates of Hell with him.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff