Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Scuffers]

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.

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?

[BrabusMog]

The arrogance of some people on this thread is astonishing.

[Scuffers]

BrabusMog said:

The arrogance of some people on this thread is astonishing.

if that's pointed at me, thanks!

All I am saying is let the experts at AAIB make the call(s).

[dr_gn]

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.

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?

A couple of points:

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."?

[saaby93]

Scuffers said:

if that's pointed at me, thanks!

I couldnt work out who so assumed it applied to all of us

It looks like two arguments for the same coin on a process which is already in train

[BrabusMog]

Scuffers said:

BrabusMog said:

The arrogance of some people on this thread is astonishing.

if that's pointed at me, thanks!

All I am saying is let the experts at AAIB make the call(s).

It was and no, that's clearly not all you're saying.

Edited by BrabusMog on Wednesday 28th October 11:51

[charlie7777]

Scuffers said:

charlie7777 said:

Yes eleven innocent people have died. To suggest that the police would not be involved in any investigation from the very beginning seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding as to the way this country is governed. ... They have a lot of power and their remit is very wide.

Yes, innocent people have died, that does not however, mean a crime has taken place.

if somebody falls off a building site, HSE investigate, and if criminality is suspected, then they call the Police in.

Are the Police in a position to investigate non-crimes of a highly technical nature?

The victims here dies when an aircraft landed on them, for that to be a crime would need to be:

1) homicidal/suicidal pilot
2) criminal negligence of the aircraft's maintenance/parts supplier.

I do not see how the Police are in any position to be able to establish either of these.

I am not suggesting that a crime has been committed. I am saying that they will investigate to see if a crime has been committed. They will no doubt collect information from all the experts before laying charges (if any). Are you seriously suggesting that if someone dies on a building site the police will only be involved if the HSE invite them?

[Eric Mc]

This thread is becoming very unbecoming.

[saaby93]

Eric Mc said:

This thread is becoming very unbecoming.

Too much saying or suggesting what someone thinks someone has said rather than what they actually thought or said.

anyway - anyone add to this

Scuffers said:

The victims here died when an aircraft landed on them, for that to be a crime would need to be:

1) homicidal/suicidal pilot
2) criminal negligence of the aircraft's maintenance/parts supplier.

Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 28th October 12:21

[Scuffers]

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]

Scuffers said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

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).

Great, and in the meantime the person who potentially committed a premeditated criminal act is free to do whatever they want? Leave the country, commit another criminal act? Whatever?

6 months down the line, when the AIIB conclude it was possibly a premeditated act, the perpetrator has long gone.

BTW have you read and understood the AAIB interim report regarding ejection since you made your last incorrect assertion?

Edited by dr_gn on Wednesday 28th October 15:06

[saaby93]

dr_gn said:

Great, and in the meantime the person who potentially committed a premeditated criminal act is free to do whatever they want? Leave the country, commit another criminal act? Whatever?

I think you'll find that just about everyone is covered by your catch all to have the potential to commit a premeditated criminal act
On what basis would you stop everyone doing anything just because they have the potential

Can you pull back a bit and just think what youre writing

[dr_gn]

saaby93 said:

dr_gn said:

Great, and in the meantime the person who potentially committed a premeditated criminal act is free to do whatever they want? Leave the country, commit another criminal act? Whatever?

I think you'll find that just about everyone is covered by your catch all to have the potential to commit a premeditated criminal act
On what basis would you stop everyone doing anything just because they have the potential

Can you pull back a bit and just think what youre writing

Obviously on the basis that not everyone subsequently kills several people.

We're talking about the general case of whether the Police should investigate an individual.

Think what I'm writing? Ironic.

[oyster]

I can see where people are coming from when they express surprise that the pilot hasn't yet been interviewed by police.

But on the other hand, what would they question him about? What actual questions would they ask?

[Dr Jekyll]

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.

[BrabusMog]

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.

I feel you're missing the point somewhat - the driver lost control whilst driving normally (I presume), what RYH64E said is not the same thing.

[Dr Jekyll]

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.

I feel you're missing the point somewhat - the driver lost control whilst driving normally (I presume), what RYH64E said is not the same thing.

My point is that the Hunter pilot may well have lost control while flying normally and RYH64E's presumption of some kind of deliberate recklessness is questionable.

[BrabusMog]

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.

I feel you're missing the point somewhat - the driver lost control whilst driving normally (I presume), what RYH64E said is not the same thing.

My point is that the Hunter pilot may well have lost control while flying normally and RYH64E's presumption of some kind of deliberate recklessness is questionable.

I would suggest you read his post again, he does not make a presumption of deliberate recklessness.

Edit just to add - in reference to the pilot, not the theoretical boy racer.

Edited by BrabusMog on Wednesday 28th October 19:57

[Dr Jekyll]

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.

I feel you're missing the point somewhat - the driver lost control whilst driving normally (I presume), what RYH64E said is not the same thing.

My point is that the Hunter pilot may well have lost control while flying normally and RYH64E's presumption of some kind of deliberate recklessness is questionable.

I would suggest you read his post again, he does not make a presumption of deliberate recklessness.

Edit just to add - in reference to the pilot, not the theoretical boy racer.

You read it again, he clearly assumes that the case is similar to a boy racer behaving recklessly and expresses amazement that the pilot may not be prosecuted.

[charlie7777]

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).

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the way things are! No point in continuing this conversation.

Edited by charlie7777 on Wednesday 28th October 20:46