Aircraft crash at Shoreham air show

The case is now Sub Judice so perhaps the Mods should lock this thread.
Yes, good idea

Also, I'll follow up on the 134,000+ google hits to ensure that comment has been closed down there too :roll:
 
Hidden in the CPS announcement is the fact that yesterday they also signed an accord committing to do more for victims of major incidents.

Whilst I don’t have a great deal of sympathy, I foresee a show trial of “a flash bastard, wealthy pilot in a big shiny toy”.

For me of far more concern is the AAIB and it’s mission creep and the utterly hopeless CAA and it’s inability or unwillingness to regulate pretty much every aspect of Aviation. It is a coin operated qango wholly in the thrall of those that pay its bills.

To cut the AAIB a bit of slack, they did at least resist attempts by the Procuartor Fiscal and Strathclyde Police to release details of their investigation into a fatal accident which those two august bodies were planning to make a criminal case.

This is important as you are required to give full answers to all questions asked by the AAIB, even if it incriminates you. Had the PF won their case, it got as far as the High Court, then crews would be in the invidious position of being required to incriminate themselves in the knowledge that it could be later used against them.

The Shoreham Trial will be an interesting test of just how watertight that finding was. In the scramble to blame someone, not very is my very concerned prediction.
 
Hidden in the CPS announcement is the fact that yesterday they also signed an accord committing to do more for victims of major incidents.

Whilst I don’t have a great deal of sympathy, I foresee a show trial of “a flash bastard, wealthy pilot in a big shiny toy”.

For me of far more concern is the AAIB and it’s mission creep and the utterly hopeless CAA and it’s inability or unwillingness to regulate pretty much every aspect of Aviation. It is a coin operated qango wholly in the thrall of those that pay its bills.

To cut the AAIB a bit of slack, they did at least resist attempts by the Procuartor Fiscal and Strathclyde Police to release details of their investigation into a fatal accident which those two august bodies were planning to make a criminal case.

This is important as you are required to give full answers to all questions asked by the AAIB, even if it incriminates you. Had the PF won their case, it got as far as the High Court, then crews would be in the invidious position of being required to incriminate themselves in the knowledge that it could be later used against them.

The Shoreham Trial will be an interesting test of just how watertight that finding was. In the scramble to blame someone, not very is my very concerned prediction.

I don't have much sympathy for people who stand where they shouldn't at airshows and on the end of runways and complain when they get hurt or blown away
I do have a tad of sympathy for people walking or driving down a main road when a jet lands on top of them
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm aware that this case is Sub Judice, so I'm making no comment on the guilt or innocence of the pilot. However, given that this crash occurred three years ago and that the majority of the facts have been known for at least two years, what concerns me most is the delay in deciding whether to bring a prosecution of not.

Surely a decision on whether there was a case to answer or not could have been reached quicker.

Wordsmith
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I live local to the area at least regarding TV news. My only question is why do the bereaved families want legal representation and why should we pony up for it? The court case and prosecution has to happen before the inquest can be concluded so what do they think they will achieve as they can't take part in the prosecution and will have no authority or influence in the inquest.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I don't have much sympathy for people who stand where they shouldn't at airshows and on the end of runways and complain when they get hurt or blown away
I do have a tad of sympathy for people walking or driving down a main road when a jet lands on top of them
I also live in the local area. The aircraft actually crashed alongside the main A27 on a Saturday afternoon. Most of the dead were in their cars going about their business - one was a chaufeur and at least two of those killed were footballers on their way to a match. If you want to watch the airshow for free, you would stand on the banks of the River Adur, not on the A27.

I was in France when this happened, when I got back I rang a mate who's an ex-REME Air Tech and has worked on aircraft all his life. His conclusion 3 days after the event was exactly what it has taken the authorities 3 years and God knows how much public money to conclude.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I also live in the local area. The aircraft actually crashed alongside the main A27 on a Saturday afternoon. Most of the dead were in their cars going about their business - one was a chaufeur and at least two of those killed were footballers on their way to a match. If you want to watch the airshow for free, you would stand on the banks of the River Adur, not on the A27.

I was in France when this happened, when I got back I rang a mate who's an ex-REME Air Tech and has worked on aircraft all his life. His conclusion 3 days after the event was exactly what it has taken the authorities 3 years and God knows how much public money to conclude.
I don't dispute that but the cost of providing 11 separate QC's for what effect other than to pander to the grievers.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
The case is now Sub Judice so perhaps the Mods should lock this thread.
If you really think that anyone posting on this forum will affect the outcome I'd suggest that you exercise restraint and stop posting about this.
The rest of us will be following with interest what has been said in court!
 
I don't dispute that but the cost of providing 11 separate QC's for what effect other than to pander to the grievers.
if you'd had a family member killed in what may very well be an unlawful manner you might want to have some involvement in matters.

Personally, I found reading the accident report a sobering affair; a serviceable aircraft with a medically fit pilot doesn't just end up smearing itself along an A-road for no reason. It is clear from the report that all parties involved fell short of their obligations, obviously the court case will decide what is legally actionable and what is not.

Aircraft Accident Report AAR 1/2017 - G-BXFI, 22 August 2015 - GOV.UK

It also baffles me why people moan about the CAA taking action; their job is to put in place a system of regulation to stop things like this from happening - they failed, clearly - so they have no choice but to tighten the screws. If that changes what you do then hey, we've found the source of the problem. If it doesn't then congratulation, you're not.
 
I live local to the area at least regarding TV news. My only question is why do the bereaved families want legal representation and why should we pony up for it? The court case and prosecution has to happen before the inquest can be concluded so what do they think they will achieve as they can't take part in the prosecution and will have no authority or influence in the inquest.
Forgetting this specific case, if one of my family were killed by the actions of somebody doing something they had no business to be doing then the very least I'd expect is legal representation.

The main breadwinner of family being killed may be considered life changing in more ways than one and legal representation and/or compensation does not seem unreasonable in the circumstances.

Should somebody who has lost the husband or son to the reckless behaviour of another and who can't afford legal representation be denied access to justice just because somebody on Arrse thinks they are compo grabbers?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Forgetting this specific case, if one of my family were killed by the actions of somebody doing something they had no business to be doing then the very least I'd expect is legal representation.

The main breadwinner of family being killed may be considered life changing in more ways than one and legal representation and/or compensation does not seem unreasonable in the circumstances.

Should somebody who has lost the husband or son to the reckless behaviour of another and who can't afford legal representation be denied access to justice just because somebody on Arrse thinks they are compo grabbers?
To what effect? You don't get to put your side of the story in either criminal or coroners court. Surely the time for representation is when the ambulance chaser start to get the claims in and that cant happen until after both courts are finished!
Just a waste of public money!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
if you'd had a family member killed in what may very well be an unlawful manner you might want to have some involvement in matters.

Personally, I found reading the accident report a sobering affair; a serviceable aircraft with a medically fit pilot doesn't just end up smearing itself along an A-road for no reason. It is clear from the report that all parties involved fell short of their obligations, obviously the court case will decide what is legally actionable and what is not.
please see my post above, a waste of time and money as it will have no impact or effect until after both courts have finished. Perhaps Dingerr can enlighten us?
 
To what effect? You don't get to put your side of the story in either criminal or coroners court. Surely the time for representation is when the ambulance chaser start to get the claims in and that cant happen until after both courts are finished!
Just a waste of public money!
There are times when legal aid is an absolute waste of public money - the druggy scrote who knocks an old lady over the head for her pension money for the umpteenth time for example - but this, in my mind is not one of them.

We'll have to agree to disagree this time.
 
My father in law was injured in hospital due to negligence and the Solicitor we used set up an insurance policy ,which we paid for only if we lost in court but it would also cover the case costs in that event. A Barrister would probably only be required if the case went to Court, if in this case negligence is proven by Coroners Court then wouldn't the aircraft operators in all probability settle out of court. There is a tarrif of recompense which we had explained to us it quantifies the 'price' as it were put on each type of injury. I think Legal Aid is available but seem to remember that it is means tested, so I doubt if there will be any cost to the public purse for Barrister costs.
 
It also baffles me why people moan about the CAA taking action; their job is to put in place a system of regulation to stop things like this from happening - they failed, clearly - so they have no choice but to tighten the screws. If that changes what you do then hey, we've found the source of the problem. If it doesn't then congratulation, you're not.
Really? I'll use another example of a similar vein: the B-52 crash in the US where the pilot was basically showing off and took the aircraft outside its limits, thus killing all on board.

The CAA can put rules in place but if a maverick or incompetent pilot goes outside those rules then the culpability is with the pilot.

I'm not pre-judging or prejudicing anything or anyone here; that's for the court to decide and I'd suggest that that's why the Shoreham incident is coming to court.
 

Latest Threads

Top