***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 4 *****
==========================================================
Continuing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 24 Mar 18 at 20:29
|
From vol 2:
>> It appears that the jet entered the manoeuvre at 200 feet which means it would have
>> exited the loop at under 200 feet, which leaves very little margin for error.
Read today that pilot was only licensed to do loops above 500ft?
|
>> Read today that pilot was only licensed to do loops above 500ft?
The AAIB bulletin states He held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard category aerobatic manoeuvres.
A footnote provides a link to a Civil Aviation Authority publication for a definition of 'standard category aerobatic manoeuvres'. I've not read it but I assume loops etc would fall within that group.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 5 Sep 15 at 13:05
|
Since posting above I've had a quick look on PPRUNE for posts since yesterday's report. One point made is:
In display flying, an aerobatic manoeuvre is defined as more than 30 degrees pitch or more than 60 degrees roll. (CAP403) It is common to climb from approved flypast height to aerobatic height in a fluid motion before commencing the full manoeuvre. As long as the pitch attitude has not exceeded 30 degrees by the aerobatic minimum then, the aerobatic manoeuvre has not commenced below the minima. Flying in this way would give an additional margin to the pilot, while keeping the display flowing. Whether or not this manoeuvre was flown in this way is not clear from the initial AAIB report.
Some later posts develop the argument further but above answers a question that was in my mind about what's permissible in the transition from 100ft flyby to 500ft aeros.
I don't think there's anything in the AAIB report justifying headlines* suggesting rules were broken. Not saying they were not, just that we don't know enough so far.
*www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222624/There-wrong-vintage-Hawker-Hunter-jet-involved-Shoreham-crash-according-safety-experts-seen-cockpit-footage.html
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 5 Sep 15 at 13:54
|
Pilot released from hospital; police want to speak to him:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3228886/Pilot-crashed-jet-Shoreham-airshow-interviewed-police.html
EDIT: although A neighbour told the paper: 'He's not well at all.'
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 12:25
|
>> Pilot released from hospital; police want to speak to him:
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3228886/Pilot-crashed-jet-Shoreham-airshow-interviewed-police.html
Sussex police can eft off until after the AAIB report.
|
Goodness me, the accident was only three weeks ago and he's gone from "Critical and fighting for his life" to "released from hospital".
That seems awfully quick.
*IF* the fault was his, especially *IF* he was reckless, and 11 people have died, then I assume that things are not going to go well for him.
|
Sussex police can eft off until after the AAIB report.
Indeed, I hope he had a friendly solicitor draw up a short statement that says in effect:
The AAIB have responsibility for air crashes in the UK and consequently will be making a full report in due course. As needed, I will speak to them, and them only until they report on the matter.
Or something like it.
|
Sussex police can eft off until after the AAIB report.
>>
I would think the police with dead bodies have primacy, are they still agents of the coroner?
|
I would think the police with dead bodies have primacy, are they still agents of the coroner?
If the police are agents of the coroner (quite likely I'd have thought) I'd be pretty sure the coroner is not going to pre-empt the AAIB report. An inquest will be opened shortly I'd imagine, and although bits of it may take place, like the identification of the victims, the coroner should then adjourn the inquest till the report is published since until he's got that, he nor anyone else knows the reasons for the event.
|
|
Ahh right thanks. I couldn't remember all the ins and outs. But i remember they have control over the crash site and the bodies.
|
The police will provide a report for the coroner... and they won't be necessarily waiting until the AAIB report is completed before they start making their own enquiries...why would they?
You'd want the witnesses to be able to provide meaningful information before they start forgetting things... and you'd want their evidence admissible in court, which it probably wouldn't be if you left it for many months.
If someone has done something wrong and does not wish to answer police questions, that is their right... as is the system whereby the police advise them that if they don't answer the questions, the court may infer what it wishes from that failure.... and most jurors think that a failure to answer is hiding something.
|
Needs a legal eagle, but I'd think the police probably could get access to the Q and A sessions the AAIB has with the pilot - but I seriously doubt it is wise for the pilot to partake of sessions just with the police, both for the reasons above and also in his own interest.
The AAIB has essentially one main question, 'why' and needs to answer 'how can we prevent this happening again'.
Pilot may, or may not be guilty of an offence, but the only example of police questioning I've seen was cringe-worthy in the extreme. I rather doubt there is anyone in police employ qualified to fly displays in any aircraft, let alone a jet.
|
>> Needs a legal eagle, but I'd think the police probably could get access to the
>> Q and A sessions the AAIB has with the pilot -
The police tried just that but were firmly rebuffed by the High Court:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2280.html
Key paras are 41-43. (1) Chilling effect on witnesses' willingness to be frank (2) AAIB can compel witnesses and, unlike in police interview, there is no clear and prescriptive caution process.
They were allowed access to film from on board cameras but court differentiated these voluntary installations from flight/voice recorders mandated by law.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 1 Oct 16 at 14:04
|
>> The police will provide a report for the coroner... and they won't be necessarily waiting
>> until the AAIB report is completed before they start making their own enquiries...why would they?
Because they dont have the technical expertise to investigate or interpret what went on or causes, and if you can't find a cause you can't can't apportion blame. The AAIB find cause, then the HSE or CAA will prosecute and may use police resources to build case.
We have présidence for this, Train guard jailed over death of passenger, prosecution had to wait a long time for the RAIB report to be completed before the case came to court -
>> You'd want the witnesses to be able to provide meaningful information before they start forgetting
>> things... and you'd want their evidence admissible in court, which it probably wouldn't be if
>> you left it for many months.
AAIB take statements, NONE of which are admissible in court. If they were, no-one would tell them anything.
|
There will be a number of investigations going on in tandem. The AAIB one, the Coroner's one, and potentially a criminal one.
Please read with caution - the report is from the Daily Mail...!
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 18:37
|
>>caution - the report is from the Daily Mail...!
>
And continues to push the line that the pilot was doing stuff at 200 feet he should not have done below 500. Nothing published by the AAIB so far justifies that conclusion.
The plane does not find its way from fly-by height to 500 feet by magic. It has to be climbed - typically as part of a smooth entry into the display. Provided he kept pitch and roll angles within prescribed parameters until 500 feet the initial climb manoeuvre was not aerobatic witihn the CAA rules for displays.
|
"And continues to push the line that............"
How do you know what line the DM is pushing, Brompt? I was under the impression that you'd rather die than be seen with your nose in the DM. More leftist hypocrisy methinks. Still, you're in good company, NoFM is an avid reader.
Earlier this evening, I was in the pub waiting for the others, so I had a look at the Daily Express - the only paper in the rack. I thought it was dreadful but maybe someone can tell me ....... is it worse than the DM?
|
>> "And continues to push the line that............"
As MArk said....
However even fatuous posts sometimes deserve a reply
It's always interesting to know what line the DM is pushing - including the stories fed to it by Tory Central Office. The use of outright lies to sell papers and push an agenda......
On the Shoreham the objective case is provided by the AAIB. It's very easy to identify the lies. They're not mistakes because (a) any reputable organ would check them out and (b) the editor was told in no uncertain terms when the allegation was first headlined last week.
|
From the AAIB:
The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations is the prevention of future accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability.
Accordingly, it is inappropriate that AAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been undertaken for that purpose.
|
|
Potentially a manslaughter charge....
|
Pilot interviewed under caution but not arrested:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35136046
|
|
I read the aaib link in that report. I think the note about MB stopping support for ejection seats is quite an important one, with all non miltary seats now not supported, that will stop alot of the air show ex-mil jets from flying.
|
damned expensive to fly.
Much more expensive to maintain.
Easy to cut costs, as 'we;ll, we've never needed it before'.
And the pool of chaps with experience in the aircraft/aircraft of a similar type is shrinking.
I saw the other day that the Vulcan was down to just 7 chaps licensed to fly it.
Locally, some clown had a few EE Lightnings. Badly maintained, but an African handshake allowed them to keep flying.
Fuel leak in the aft fuselage caught fire, burned out the hydraulics, ejector seat was non functional - pyrotechnics out of date - and he ploughed in at speed.
Lat words: "Tell her I love her".
ZU-BEX
|
|
The English Electric Lightning is a hideously complicated aeroplane that had a reputation for spending a LOT of time in the workshop in its service life. Just about any other fast jet is a better bet for private ownership.
|
Pillar, if you have nowt to do between basting the turkey and trying on some new socks, read the comedy/tragedy of errors here...
tinyurl.com/os4kjcb
the UK CAA wouldn't allow them -NOTE: Plenty of chaps who worked on them in the UK, NONE is South Africa - but some greased-palms allowed them to be flown here, with disastrous consequences
|
>> Probably a good thing.
>>
To some yes, plenty more will be disappointed if it grounds these sort of aircraft.
|
>> >> Probably a good thing.
>> >>
>>
>> To some yes, plenty more will be disappointed if it grounds these sort of aircraft.
>>
Yes, I guess it will be disappointing but these old jets are potentially flying bombs and it is unrealistic to expect that private individuals have the resources and knowledge to keep these thing safely maintained. Best leave the fast jets to the military who have the knowledge and skills.
|
Yes, I guess it will be disappointing but these old jets are potentially flying bombs and it is unrealistic to expect that private individuals have the resources and knowledge to keep these thing safely maintained. Best leave the fast jets to the military who have the knowledge and skills.
>>
Interesting, why call them a flying bomb? They aren't intrinsically any more dangerous than any other aircraft nor necessarily more complex. Not at the sort of era being discussed here.
|
>> >>
>>
>> Interesting, why call them a flying bomb?
Just look at the damage at Shoreham. Something traveling at hundreds of miles per hour filled with hundreds of gallons of fuel is reasonable described as potentially a flying bomb.
|
>> Just look at the damage at Shoreham. Something traveling at hundreds of miles per hour
>> filled with hundreds of gallons of fuel is reasonable described as potentially a flying bomb.
>>
You could discribe all aircraft like that. Infact all many of transport and vehicles.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 23 Dec 15 at 10:25
|
>> Just look at the damage at Shoreham. Something traveling at hundreds of miles per hour
>> filled with hundreds of gallons of fuel is reasonable described as potentially a flying bomb.
At the end of the day however, more lives are lost and more damaged caused by current commercial air services and current air force operations than by historic flights.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 23 Dec 15 at 10:25
|
"At the end of the day however, more lives are lost and more damaged caused by current commercial air services and current air force operations than by historic flights."
Not really a statistically valid comparison is it? The former out number the latter by thousands if not millions to one.
My concern is simply a concern that it very difficult for an organisations other than the military to keep a complex and potentially highly dangerous machjne like a jet fighter in the air. Probably safer to leave such things in the hands of the military.
|
> My concern is simply a concern that it very difficult for an organisations other than
>> the military to keep a complex and potentially highly dangerous machjne like a jet fighter
>> in the air. Probably safer to leave such things in the hands of the military.
They aren't really that complex, if they were they wouldn't be allowed to fly at all post military service. From what i remember theres a strict definition of what is a 'complex aircraft'. As aircraft go ones from that era are fairly simple machines.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 23 Dec 15 at 12:53
|
>>
>>
>> "At the end of the day however, more lives are lost and more damaged caused
>> by current commercial air services and current air force operations than by historic flights."
>>
>>
>> Not really a statistically valid comparison is it?
Yes it is, its the number of deaths that counts
|
|
An interesting and somewhat individual interpretation of statistical data.
|
|
Its got nothing to do with statistical data, so no interpretation is required and is therefore not of interest.
|
>> I read the aaib link in that report. I think the note about MB stopping
>> support for ejection seats is quite an important one, with all non miltary seats now
>> not supported, that will stop alot of the air show ex-mil jets from flying.
Hope not, I'm looking forward to seeing a Fairey Gannet that's been booked to fly at an air show.
|
|
Pretty sure they didn't have ejection seats so i think you'll be fine.
|
>> Hope not, I'm looking forward to seeing a Fairey Gannet that's been booked to fly
>> at an air show.
Is the one in UK expected to fly again soon?
|
>> >> Hope not, I'm looking forward to seeing a Fairey Gannet that's been booked to
>> fly
>> >> at an air show.
Really? There are a shed load of old aircraft military and civil I would make an effort to go and see, but I have to say that one is a long long way down the list.
|
>> Is the one in UK expected to fly again soon?
In answer to my own question, posts on PPRUNE suggest XL500, undergoing restoration at St Athan, will fly later in year.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 5 Jan 16 at 08:40
|
The Shoreham Airshow will not go ahead in 2016 after a crash during last year's event which left 11 people dead.
The decision was taken primarily out of respect for those killed when a Hawker Hunter crashed on the A27 in August, organisers said.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35364481
Airshow organisers said the Shoreham display might still take place in 2017
|
What a crazy decision and one which affects many people not just families of the deceased.
Perhaps they should have closed the road out of respect, bearing in mind they all died on a public highway.
|
|
Yes indeed. The correct choice would surely have been to have put on the airshow, with a memorial service and a minutes silence out of respect for those killed.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 21 Jan 16 at 14:14
|
Safety measures at all UK civil air shows have been enhanced following the Shoreham air disaster.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said it had reviewed every aspect of air display safety.
Tony Rapson, the CAA's head of general aviation, said the cause of the Shoreham crash was still not known but from this year all air shows would have tighter requirements.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35402830
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35473857
Sussex Police have told the families of those who died their investigation now includes an incident at the Southport airshow in 2014.
Det Ch Insp Paul Rymarz said: "We are aware of an incident at the Southport air show in 2014.
"This incident forms a line of inquiry in our wider investigation.
|
>> Sussex Police have told the families of those who died their investigation now includes an
>> incident at the Southport airshow in 2014.
Question is, what incident?
Now asked over on pprune - though not by me. I won't link to it just yet as I suspect it will get remustered to original Shoreham thread.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Feb 16 at 15:30
|
>> Probably this one.
>>
>> Pat
Thanks Pat. The pprune thread has alighted on same display.
|
>> Probably this one.>>
Correct. I live in the resort and the air show is one of the top attractions of the year. It initially came as a surprise yesterday about this "incident", until some further investigation revealed the actual reason.
Here's a video of the alleged 2014 "incident":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwhLSHpeiE8
|
>> >> Probably this one.>>
>>
>> Correct. I live in the resort and the air show is one of the top
>> attractions of the year. It initially came as a surprise yesterday about this "incident", until
>> some further investigation revealed the actual reason.
>>
>> Here's a video of the alleged 2014 "incident":
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwhLSHpeiE8
>>
It does look very similar to the shoreham incident, the difference is he had enough safety margin to recover it. Sudden loss of height certainly appears to be something the pilot is prone to doing in that manoeuvre.
|
>>It does look very similar to the shoreham incident..>>
Last year's Southport Air Show, which was just after Shoreham, had no restrictions placed on it as The Civil Air Authority ruled because the event is basically staged over the beach and sea, it was safe for spectators.
|
>>Last year's Southport Air Show, which was just after Shoreham, had no restrictions placed on it as The Civil Air Authority ruled because the event is basically staged over the beach and sea, it was safe for spectators.>>
Further to above:
www.southportvisiter.co.uk/news/southport-west-lancs/full-statement-southport-air-show-10831525
|
Airshows will never be the same again, they haven't for a long while
Look at this VC10 !
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XlSaJGtF5g
Sometimes society gets just too damned sanitised.
|
>> Airshows will never be the same again, they haven't for a long while
>>
>> Look at this VC10 !
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XlSaJGtF5g
>>
>> Sometimes society gets just too damned sanitised.
>>
I think an air france jet tried that, ended up piling in.
A point of nothing really but I think the 10 was the only passenger jet that had urinals on it.
|
>> I think an air france jet tried that, ended up piling in.
>>
That one had a computer that thought it knew more than the pilot flying it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 31 Jan 16 at 12:54
|
>> That one had a computer that thought it knew more than the pilot flying it.
Or maybe a pilot that thought he knew more than the computer flying it :-P
|
Assuming you both mean the one from 1988, I would imagine the "computer" wasn't the cleverest thing on board by a long way.
I once sat on an airbus about 10 years ago where the pilot did the equivalent of pressing the on/off switch so that we could fly in it, never mind 15 years before that.
|
|
If I remember correctly the pilots intention was to fly at low level, the computer landed the plane.
|
|
I imagined the 2009 one that ditched in the Atlantic.
|
The 2009 Air France crash was mostly pilot error. There was a problem with the pitot tube that resulted in auto pilot disengaging. The co-pilot then incorrectly handled the situation. Ultimately he stalled the plane and kept doing the opposite of what was needed, i.e. to push the nose of the plane down.
Had the pitot tube not frozen up, then auto pilot would not have disengaged and the co-pilot would not have made the mistakes he did.
|
>> Assuming you both mean the one from 1988, I would imagine the "computer" wasn't the
>> cleverest thing on board by a long way.
>> I once sat on an airbus about 10 years ago where the pilot did the
>> equivalent of pressing the on/off switch so that we could fly in it, never mind
>> 15 years before that.
>>
I have also faced the embarrassing situation of having to depower the entire aircraft with passengers on board in order to resolve a fault. There are 50+ computers on the A320 and they don't always wake up on the right side of the bed. To avoid that most airlines leave the aircraft permanently powered up but occasionally it gets shut down by engineering or the external power fails.
Switching a computer off and on normally resolves the problem, but some of the primary computers cannot be shut off by the "on-off" button in the flight deck (they're only partially deactivated) and the only way is to pull power to the aircraft.
|
Also re the Air France crash. That's widely considered human error, not a flaw in the A320 which provided all the lift capability available at the time.
Even from approach idle it takes time for engines to spool up to full power, and when I did a test flight with an engineering team a few years ago the time scale we were testing to was in the order of 10 seconds.
|
The AAIB have today published a further Special Bulletin on the accident to G BXFI:
tinyurl.com/zjsf5h7 (pdf on Gov website)
Mostly focussed on display organiser stuff.
|
|
I heard that the rules are now so tight that many airshows planned for your summer have been cancelled.
|
>> I heard that the rules are now so tight that many airshows planned for your
>> summer have been cancelled.
think the Airshow scene in the UK dies here, only those wholly over sea will survive. It s a good job the vulcan disappeared when it did, its appearances would have been a sad parody.
|
|
Only to be expected, damaging the punters, or worse the general public is a no no. I am amazed that rallying (road racing) has lasted as long as it has. Track racing had to improve with huge run off areas and escape roads to survive. Monaco and other street circuits are like driving between steel walls, as is motorway driving.
|
ON>>Only to be expected, damaging the punters, or worse the general public is a no no.
Dead right.
Much as we mock health and safety:
www.facebook.com/FailsNPranks/videos/134036010321207/?pnref=story
5 workers died during the construction of the Empire State Building. During 2014, across the whole of the UK, "only" 42 workers died on construction sites. Most of those will probably have been on small construction sites where H&S is a much lesser priority.
|
>>think the Airshow scene in the UK dies here
Some local to me have been cancelled, Sywell and Little Gransden seem to be off. Shuttleworth however has a full program this year.
The Vulcan put on two displays at Shuttleworth last year, one before and one after Shoreham. The second appeared to be less enthusiastic.
|
|
So if there is now where to show these great aircraft will they just be parked up in a hanger to die?
|
|
If they can't be flown responsibly, yes.
|
|
Seaside ones seem to be the only option, did Southport and Bournemouth in the last couple of years and enjoyed them immensely.
|
>> Seaside ones seem to be the only option, did Southport and Bournemouth in the last
>> couple of years and enjoyed them immensely.
Eastbourne is supposed to be quite good.
|
|
Eastbourne is a good show, but it is very very crowded to the extent that they have crowd control barriers and snaking queues at the station.
|
And no great surprises
www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraft-accident-report-aar-1-2017-g-bxfi-22-august-2015
Like regrettably far too many airshow accidents, a bit more height and there'd not have been an accident.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43494430
Sorry to duplicate your link Bromp but the thread hasn't been flagged with your post or come to the top of the list for me.
So I'll try posting one too.
Pat
|
|
Seems to have taken a long time to come to a decision. I suppose it's an unusual case.
|
|
The outcome is no surprise. The surprise it took so long to charge him. It's been 2.5 years.... and then there will be a trial... So he'll have had 3-4 years of freedom when he is responsible for 11 deaths due to his dangerous flying.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 22 Mar 18 at 19:20
|
They have to wait for the AAIB to complete their investigation and publish the report*. Then they have gather sufficient evidence of some from of culpability. Clearly the negligent threshold was finally reached, allowing the CPS to prosecute
*there was however a case where the RAIB held back publishing their report till after prosecution
|
>> The outcome is no surprise. The surprise it took so long to charge him. It's
>> been 2.5 years.... and then there will be a trial... So he'll have had 3-4
>> years of freedom when he is responsible for 11 deaths due to his dangerous flying.
If he's guilty - and given there are live proceedings speculation may be unwise.
After a guilty plea or verdict he'll get same serving of porridge as if he'd been charged/tried as soon as he was fit to stand trial.
|
It is a fact the pilot started his manoeuvre too low and and at too low a speed. He had no chance of completing the loop in the aircraft. He should have aborted the manoeuvre.
For his sake I hope he pleads guilty next month.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 22 Mar 18 at 22:47
|
Start reading at page 195 of this:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58b9247740f0b67ec80000fc/AAR_1-2017_G-BXFI.pdf
I am sure Bromptonaut has read it all already.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 22 Mar 18 at 22:53
|
>> I am sure Bromptonaut has read it all already.
I read the report when it was published.
AIUI the report itself is not admissible as evidence. International treaties ensure accident reports are about what happened and lessons learned not who is to blame.
I'd also suspect that facts outlined from page 195 on suggest pilot might have some defences.
|
He might have some defences but the evidence from that is stacked against him. He's better of pleading guilty and going away for a while. Not pleading guilty is futile and will lead to a longer sentence.
And future airshows need to take into account the learning points. But this guy was a maverick based on that document. I am not speculating - it's black and white and an official AAIB document.
If the document is not available as evidence then what's the point?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 22 Mar 18 at 23:54
|
>>and given there are live proceedings speculation may be unwise.
Speculation without knowledge? What's the problem?
|
I did not speculate - I based my post on the official AAIB report. That is fact and the pilot cannot dispute. He has not disputed.
If he pleads not guilty, then I'd hope his ultimate sentence reflects his endangerment of the public. There was an element of trust on their part.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 00:14
|
|
Who needs courts and lawyers? Waste of time and money. Just get rtj70 to decide guilt or innocence and determine the sentence.
|
>> Speculation without knowledge? What's the problem?
Potentially prejudicing proceedings:
www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133630
You may say speculation on a forum with 20 active members (but potentially far more readers) won't create a substantial risk of prejudice - you might be right. However, like naming and shaming, defending such proceedings will probably be a risk the site's owner doesn't want to take.
|
Stuff and nonsense. That is about reporting restrictions and the publication of specific material or interviews.
Speculation between people without knowledge is totally outside those guidelines and laws. The key word being "reporting".
Ridiculous interpretation and overreaction..
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 10:06
|
You're wrong IMO.
Prejudicial statements on social media once process has started could amount to contempt of court and I think Dominic Grieve said that a few years back.
It's about publishing, not the medium.
The problem is one of practicality now - it was realistic to think in terms of newspapers etc following rules re 'sub judice' but applying that to each and every wayward comment on facebook could mean trials being stopped left right and centre.
|
I agree with my learned friend Mr Dugong.
IIRC there have been warnings from Judges about Twitter/Facebook.
|
I don't believe you are correct.
The only warnings I have heard of have occurred when information has been shared, usualy identifying someone. Not about individuals discussing.
We don't live in that place yet.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 11:04
|
Individuals discuss in pub or at supermarket checkout = no issue.
As Manatee points out, publication potentially engages the law.
I agree the bench and Attorney General have bigger fish to fry and the chances of prosecution are minimal. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.
|
I suppose it turns on whether what is published could seriously prejudice the trial. Therefore there must be is a scale of that.
"Based on the legitimately reported facts or material, I think he's guilty and he should get a long sentence" is probably OK.
"He must be guilty because his own brother told me he despised rules and always did things his own way" probably isn't OK, whether true or not. And in most cases, where it is kept from the jury until after the verdict, it would be prejudicial to publish a previous criminal record.
I don't think rtj70 or C4P are in any danger of prosecution as a result of this thread.
|
>> I don't think rtj70 or C4P are in any danger of prosecution as a result of this thread.
What I say is based on what the AAIB has published online in a PDF document. It is a public document that states he could not complete the manoeuvre because of his starting altitude and air speed therefore he should have aborted. I think it also said he was outside of the agreed area for the displays, i.e. had something gone wrong there should not have been anyone in danger anyway. He chose not to abort - therefore he is responsible for the deaths. He was also lucky not to have killed himself.
Perhaps the AAIB should not have made this document public until after a trial?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 12:43
|
>> Perhaps the AAIB should not have made this document public until after a trial?
It is (AFAIK) not admissible in itself. I'd expect judge and defending counsel to be aware of it's content and status and to give appropriate directions to the jury.
There is precedent with at least on Rail Accident report (death on Liverpool Underground) being delayed until guard had been tried for manslaughter. Not inconceivable that AAIB might be asked to remove report from their website pending trial.
|
Missed edit. All AAIB reports contain the following warning:
The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations
is the prevention of future accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of such
an investigation to apportion blame or liability.
Accordingly, it is inappropriate that AAIB reports should be used to assign fault or blame
or determine liability, since neither the investigation nor the reporting process has been
undertaken for that purpose.
In this case the Police sought disclosure of documents held by the AAIB but were refused by the High Court.
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/2280.html
The report itself contains facts which may suggest the pilot has a defence and/or mitigation. .
|
>> The report itself contains facts which may suggest the pilot has a defence and/or mitigation. .
If anything went wrong in the agreed acrobatic manoeuvre surely no members of the public should be at risk. It had been practiced before, he knew how the plane handled etc. If the engine suddenly stopped or blew up.... still nobody should have been at risk.
So if the airshow had granted permission to an aircraft to do a risky manoeuvre that potentially could harm or kill spectators then I agree there may be some mitigation. They'd best not agree similar again or any other airshow for that matter.
As an aside, I saw the US equivalent of the Red Arrows perform above San Francisco in 1998 (?). These were (I think) F16 so much more capable than the aircraft favoured by the Red Arrows. I was shocked what they were allowed to do overhead.
Had I known this was going ahead (it was NOT anticipated/expected by my brother living there but obviously a planned event) I'd have been miles away. This was over the city! I was in China Town at the time.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 23:54
|
Even though we don't know the legal outcome yet, IMO it's fairly harsh to be calling for severe sentences. I doubt the bloke, who was an experienced flyer, had any intent of causing the massive death and destruction which occurred, it was an error of judgement. I know many of you will never have ever done that in your job, and many workplace errors result in something as serious as a late report or an unpaid invoice but sometimes it can be more serious.
I do think there needs to be some punishment but, like that bonfire smoke incident on the M5 a few years ago I feel something less than a manslaughter charge would be appropriate. Although I suppose the judge could hand out a more lenient sentence of the facts supported it (though as per the other thread here not everyone would be "happy" with that!)
I saw the Red Arrows perform over Fowey some years back, but my impression was that they weren't really over Fowey, the more dangerous manoeuvres were over the nearby hills and valleys. I also was watching from a side view not underneath and there was quite clearly a huge vertical gap between the planes on some of the manoeuvres, which from the ground underneath would have looked much closer and more dangerous.
I wouldn't usually think of not going to something unless I had some evidence that it was really unsafe. Do you not go swimming Rob, or cross the road, just "in case" something happens?
|
>>(though as per the other thread here not everyone would be "happy" with that!)<<
Which other thread are you referring to and who isn't happy Smokie, please?
Pat
|
>> >>(though as per the other thread here not everyone would be "happy" with that!)<<
>>
>> Which other thread are you referring to and who isn't happy Smokie, please?
I can only think he means this one:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=24737&m=563935&v=e
|
I've tried to find another one and can't, that's why I asked the question but if that's the thread, and my comment then it does appear to be yet another silly dig at me once again from a Mod.
Surely it would be better to comment in reply to me on that thread, and pass an opinion?
Pat
|
>> Surely it would be better to comment in reply to me on that thread, and
>> pass an opinion?
I doubt anybody read it as a dig at you. More a general point that in sentencing, as elsewhere in life, you cannot please all of the people all of the time.
|
If that was the case it would have been far easier, and less contentious, to just say that.
The exclamation mark and inverted comma's sort of said it all:)
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sat 24 Mar 18 at 13:38
|
I'm reluctant to make a comment when really it adds nothing to anything, but I will as you are wrongly but publicly accusing me of having a dig at you.
Had I wanted to pick an argument with you Pat, I would have done it on the other thread, or named names on this one. In fact when I made the comment above I didn't even recall who had made the comment which had stuck in my mind.
Bromps summed up my thinking at the time I wrote the post quite accurately. Thanks for that.
|
I'm not publicly accusing you of anything, I asked for clarification as it was unclear.
It is now quite clear thankyou, however, why you consider passing an opinion which differs from mine on a discussion forum becomes 'picking an argument with me' says it all really.
Would you prefer it if I refrain from posting altogether?
Pat
|
Geez, why do I fall for it?
You said " it does appear to be yet another silly dig at me once again from a Mod."
So I said "... you are wrongly but publicly accusing me of having a dig at you."
So you did publicly accuse me of having a dig at you.
I'm not bothering to respond to the remainder of your post at the moment as I'm happy to just leave it there rather than have a protracted debate.
|
>>I'm not bothering to respond to the remainder of your post at the moment <<
Of course not, that's the hard bit to respond to!
Pat
|
Did you agree that you had publicly accused me of something, or was that the hard bit to respond to?
I'll be trying not to rise to your trolling me any more today, so can we call it a day on this one? I'm sure people didn't come to the thread on the Hawker crash to read this rubbish.
You can take that as a victory if it makes you feel better. I really don't care.
|
>> I know many of you will never have ever done that in your job,
>> and many workplace errors result in something as serious as a late report or an
>> unpaid invoice
And an example:
Local council's workplace error was annual Council Tax Bill stating increase from last year was 1%. It clearly wasn't as precepts from County, P&CC etc increased by percentages ranging from 2% to 5%. Amount an instalments were correct but they'd failed to change a line in the template.
They've had to send letters to every household apologising and explaining, postage alone must be several £k.
Somebody will be having a no tea and biscuits interview.
|
>> I agree with my learned friend Mr Dugong.
>>
>> IIRC there have been warnings from Judges about Twitter/Facebook.
A typical case of judges not being up to speed with real life. There is absolutely nothing they can do about judicial speculation on social media. Practically or legally. All they can practically do is restrict jurors from access to social media, and only then after they have been sworn into the jury. Bag out cat by then.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 23 Mar 18 at 11:40
|
Hawker Hunter T7 Crash. - Focusless
