Hunter crash at Shoreham air show

Seriously? It is entirely consistent that he may well, as he says, have no memory of the day itself, while at the same time being all too painfully aware of the magnitude of what happened.

Tom

 

I am not disputing his awareness of the magnitude only his awareness of his connection to it and the consequences; he may not be able to relate the person causing the accident and the person he considers himself to be to be one and the same.

 

In which case he may find it easier to live with, and perhaps that is a kindness that we should not begrudge. Carrying responsibility for 11 deaths and the associated impact on many many others would be a heavy burden to bear for a mistake made without forethought or malice.

It strikes me that the whole "industry" is somewhat culpable. The extraordinarily long period since an "off site" impact may have led people into a trap where certain risks were not perceived. Airshow organisers maybe havent controlled the air space as firmly as they should, and the CAA seems to have (understandbly) felt that airshows didnt need a heavy regulatory hand (they still dont I would suggest).

 

Well eleven people have died and someone needs to be held to account. Apportioning responsibility between those involved, as opposed to saying whether Mr. "X" is guilty or innocent is something the English criminal law seems to have difficulty with. It could well end up with everyone being found "not guilty"when. clearly, some person/organisation is.

PH

 

OK, so who do you blame? the pilot, that goes without saying, but did he mean to crash his jet? the authorities that decided Shoreham was safe for the airshow, that all safety precautions had been done? had all safety related risk assessments been done? the local council for not thinking, actually, should something go wrong, should we be diverting traffic off that section of the A27 anyway during the air show, to enable a quick emergency response should it be needed , ? if i can be honest, this was an accident, ok one that could have been avoided, to my way of thinking, a main road so close to the edge of the display area should have meant road closure for the duration of the flying, Andy Hill, if there was a question over his flying previously should have been grounded, and not allowed to have flown, until his flying had been re assessed and passed as fit to display, at Shorham, as soon as it was clear the plane was not being flown correctly, he should have been instructed to abort not try to continue , and return to base , was there anyone in contact with the pilot to tell him, abort abort, return to base? in the initial climb, before the top of the loop, i think had someone ordered him to abort, those lives may not have been lost. but there must have been clues before the crash.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. There is a risk in human activity and sometimes things conspire to cause this sort of tragedy. In the days before the legal witch hunt the three main priorities were, what precisely happened, how did it happen and what can we do to ensure, as far as possible, it doesn't happen again? Unfortunately the modern health and safety industry seem to be more interested in seeing who they can nail for it and then go way over the top, with a serious danger making life so safe it won't be worth living. The no standing in the vestibule rule on railtours is a good example.

 

I'm really not sure what purpose is served by trying to aportion blame. Surely no one is assuming that anyone with a stake in the accident acted as they did with wilful desire to cause harm? So it was an accident - the best outcome for society would be to learn the lessons so it doesn't happen again. That aim isn't helped if people are in fear for the consequences if they talk truthfully about what they did and why.

Tom

 

Unfortunately, the absence of desire to cause harm is not a defence to criminal or civil litigation in such situations, as with matters investigated by the RAIB which may involve legal consequences. I don't know whether the possibility of a criminal prosecution has been ruled out, but one gets the impression that lawyers are scenting some attractive fee earning opportunities, where allocation of responsibility will be very much to the fore, with the RAF Association as a possible target.

 

It should be pointed out of course that a number of people will have either suffered significant injury or lost a loved one which in turn will have a significant financial impact on them and for which quite rightly they will be seeking redress.

Don't forget that if you are involved in an accident the Department for Work & Pensions will be seeking repayment from the liable party for any benefits paid to you as a result of the accident, on behalf of the taxpayer. Some employers do the same where they have to pay out through an occupational pension or sick pay scheme.

 

I largely agree, but I think it is elements of the legal profession whose obsession is with who they can 'nail'. My experience of Health & Safety Professionals is they aim to enable things to happen safely, while never forgetting the threat they and the organisations they work for may be under from ambulance chasing legal action if the worst does happen.

The cost and disruption of something going wrong means that it makes business sense to try and avoid accidents too, quite apart from the human cost, but a lot of the 'you can't do that' in my experience comes not from the H & S professionals but from those who think they are H & S experts but actually aren't! Ask the H & S people a question and 'Why can't you do it? Do a risk assessment, take any appropriate measures and do it in a controlled and thought about manner' is more likely to be the professional response, along with questioning some of the steps the more immediate managers have come up with as 'gold plating'!

I have even seen supposed experts disagreeing with one of the senior people who would decide who would be prosecuted in the worst cases as to who might be in danger of prosecution and where responsibility (and liability!) for safety actually lies - like telling the Police who they should arrest and the disagreeing with the CPS about who they should prosecute!

The effect on all involved when something does go wrong makes it hard to deny a professional approach to H & S is needed - but that tends not to be as excessive as people imagine. Thing is, these days the 'Regulator' won't tell you exactly what needs doing like in the days of Major Olver, but they will point out where something needs doing and then it is up to you to make proposals. The 'regulator' can't risk being seen as an advisor or they end up in the dock too if the worst happens!

Steven

 

I'm not suggesting that any parties you describe are blameless, but there's one you miss out with a large degree of culpability… insurers. It's not just about lawyers figuring out who they can nail, but also insurers coming up with ways they can avoid paying out. It's a pretty vicious cycle, when they're all involved.

Simon

 

That depends on how you define "guilty". Something terrible happened, and the AAIB report is clear that all was not as good as it might have been. Whether that translates into individual or corporate guilt depends on how the law is defined, and the precise roles each played.

However, let us not exclude the possibility that all acted legally, to the best of their abilities, and that this dreadful tragedy was genuinely an accident.

 

The only thing which is almost absolutely certain is that those who died did not contribute to their own demise by their own actions.

PH

 

I don't think you can be absolutely certain of that. For most of the victims it is true, but I believe a few had chosen to observe the air display from that location, which would seem to me to be a contributory factor of their own making. Not a comment on their actions, just your absolute certainty.

 

I knew one of the victims and I'm quite sure he was where he was, not to avoid the cost of the ticket, but because the time the Vulcan was due to display - his main reason for attending - the angle of the light outside the show would have been much better than being inside.

 

That is not merely bending over backwards but sideways and standing on your head to make excuses. The actions which led to the crash and deaths were not theirs.

PH

 

I'm sorry - I'm not making excuses for anybody - I'm merely pointing out your statement was flawed. If you can't see it, then that's a reflection on you, not me.

 

So did the people who died in their vehicles on the A27 also contribute to their fate by being so foolhardy as to drive their cars on the public highway? I think I knew the same victim as Spamcan and concur that he would have been there for the correct camera angle.

 

Ian - I am sorry to hear that.I was attempting to point out the flaw in Paul's statement. I will apologise that I appear to have done so clumsily, my intent has been misread, and I will withdraw without causing further offence.