Of course no pilot wants to crash their plane. But, sh*t happens. That's why there are rules.
Aviation Hawker Hunter Down.
- Thread starter andyglym
- Start date
Smiffy said
But, "paperwork" didn't cause this aircraft to crash. It could have possibly prevented it, but it didn't cause it. That remains to be either the aircraft itself or the pilot
If an adequate Method Statement and Risk Assessment had been compiled ,and worked to it would have reduced the chance of a incident occurring ,AND, reduced the effects if the incident did occur. So while "paperwork" did not cause the crash , it may have resulted in the consequences being more serious than it may otherwise have been.
Regard the condition of the aircraft , as I understand it they are independently certified. I have known brand new items of plant[including cars] that have been very unreliably and know some old gear that was still being used because it was so reliable. This was highlighted to me when I saw a drill in a museum identical to some we were still using.
But, "paperwork" didn't cause this aircraft to crash. It could have possibly prevented it, but it didn't cause it. That remains to be either the aircraft itself or the pilot
If an adequate Method Statement and Risk Assessment had been compiled ,and worked to it would have reduced the chance of a incident occurring ,AND, reduced the effects if the incident did occur. So while "paperwork" did not cause the crash , it may have resulted in the consequences being more serious than it may otherwise have been.
Regard the condition of the aircraft , as I understand it they are independently certified. I have known brand new items of plant[including cars] that have been very unreliably and know some old gear that was still being used because it was so reliable. This was highlighted to me when I saw a drill in a museum identical to some we were still using.
Are you a dentist by any chance?.....
Dentists scare me ---no I was underground.
Reading the report it seems two faults
1----Pilot error , we have all made mistakes, and will continue to do so.
2--- The bit I find amazing is the fact that no person had responsibility for safety, two parties both thinking the other held the safety brief
The first point ,unfortunately, can not be cured.
The second relating to Risk Assessments , Method Statements and having a named person to have overall safety responsibility should be relatively easy to do---other industries have done it for years.
1----Pilot error , we have all made mistakes, and will continue to do so.
2--- The bit I find amazing is the fact that no person had responsibility for safety, two parties both thinking the other held the safety brief
The first point ,unfortunately, can not be cured.
The second relating to Risk Assessments , Method Statements and having a named person to have overall safety responsibility should be relatively easy to do---other industries have done it for years.
I was a little surprised at the reason for his "mistake", that he likely confused the altitude/speed for the manoeuvre with another aircraft he flew. I though that any pilot flying a display would have to have documented, or research what they are doing. But I guess that the word "mistake" covers what I would call gross negligence?
Agreed. Sadly he's not the first nor will be the last to outrun his talent.
I've read most of the report and IMHO this is down to the pilot. Personally I see it as more than an error, but it is down to the CPS and then a Court to decide.
Manslaughter requires the proving of gross negligence. I personally think this needs to be tested, but I don't make that comment lightly.
Ultimately, once the aircraft is off the ground there is little anybody on the ground can do other than call for the display to be aborted. This is easy in hindsight, but extremely difficult in real time, with no real indication of speeds and heights on the ground. This is why a pilot has to have a Display Authority (DA) in order to fly the display. That in itself is a Risk Assessment of the pilot. The DA specifies what he can fly and sets minimum display height.
The "method statement" exists in that maneouvre minimums, entry height, entry speed, thrust setting and Apex "gate" are all known and defined. The abort should be instinctive on not meeting the "gate". In flying you are taught to err on the side of caution, if in doubt, abort. This is because the ground is very hard and not very forgiving!
We will see where this goes, but the Police and the CPS can not use the AAIB report as evidence, they need to do their own leg work.
Manslaughter requires the proving of gross negligence. I personally think this needs to be tested, but I don't make that comment lightly.
Ultimately, once the aircraft is off the ground there is little anybody on the ground can do other than call for the display to be aborted. This is easy in hindsight, but extremely difficult in real time, with no real indication of speeds and heights on the ground. This is why a pilot has to have a Display Authority (DA) in order to fly the display. That in itself is a Risk Assessment of the pilot. The DA specifies what he can fly and sets minimum display height.
The "method statement" exists in that maneouvre minimums, entry height, entry speed, thrust setting and Apex "gate" are all known and defined. The abort should be instinctive on not meeting the "gate". In flying you are taught to err on the side of caution, if in doubt, abort. This is because the ground is very hard and not very forgiving!
We will see where this goes, but the Police and the CPS can not use the AAIB report as evidence, they need to do their own leg work.
Yeah, but don't all blame the pilot just yet, it was not his plane and it was also stated that the jet was not properly maintained.
Go and drive someone else's Z and all the wheels fall off, is that your fault?
Go and drive someone else's Z and all the wheels fall off, is that your fault?
In this modern day and age Mike, sadly, yes it is your fault, because you should satisfy yourself that the car is fit to drive or decline to do so.
Yes, total darn, and I agree but this is the CYA world we live in where no one is responsible for anything anymore and there no such things as accidents.
Tony.
the issues over maintenance were minor and didn't affect the actual airworthyness. A bit like driving a good Z with no MOT, a piece of paper doesn't make it safe or dangerous, but 140mph on country roads does.
But a Method Statement and Risk Assessment in that context is just a Generic document , that can be used to draft the RS & MS for that individual event. This site specific document will take into account what happens in the event of an incident occurring , and what steps can be taken to minimise the effect of the event. I would have expected it to include full details of the flight ,and what would occur if that flight plan was deviated from , and steps to reduce those consequences if required. As an example these could include amending the flight plan to fly over a "safer" area.
The bit I found most amazing was the fact no person was actually designated to control the safety on the day, and can then held accountable at the end of the day.
As an example on a railway job you have the COSS [Controller of Site Safety]
Its in all professions now , the police don't have Road Traffic Accident now they have Road Traffic Incidents.In this modern day and age Mike, sadly, yes it is your fault, because you should satisfy yourself that the car is fit to drive or decline to do so.
Yes, total darn, and I agree but this is the CYA world we live in where no one is responsible for anything anymore and there no such things as accidents.
Tony.
HSE have also taken this stance up.
It seems to be thought that with adequate planning you can reduce the risk's in doing anything down to a very minimal chance of it occurring, its were a safety consultant or HSA require to tread a very careful line to consider what can be reasonable expected, against going completely over the top in regards safeguards and cost.
I spent my life in construction [now retired thank goodness]and when I started the risks taken each day on site resulted in a lot of "accidents"
but when I retired it had swung too far the other way ,as an example we were supposed to inform a time served tradesman with 30 years doing the job , how to be safe. He knew a lot more than any of technical staff who were trying to tell him.
But the use of Risk Assessments did reduce the risks involved on site, and so save injury's As an example we got a client's Safety Officer ask for a note be included that when working near or in deep excavations the Safety Helmet has got to have a chin strap secured. Discussing this internally a foreman pointed he had seen a men get hit with helmet that fell 60 foot down a hole. I would never have thought of that one.