Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 244

Thread: Shoreham Investigation Update

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    1,085

    Shoreham Investigation Update

    Just been reported on local BBC News that Sussex Police are now Investigating an "incident" at the 2014 Southport Airshow as part of their investigations into the Shoreham accident.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    1,085
    Presumably the Police are looking at the Southport incident where the Jet Provost reportedly made a very low recovery towards the crowd after an aerobatic manoeuver, and then immediately pulled up and away and abandoned its display.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,628
    Do the Police have special expertise in this?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,068
    Almost exactly my question. Altho' they can hire it, the Police have no aviation expertise in any direction whatsoever, including accident imvestigation. Their sole remit is the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension of the wrongdoer.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    East Sussex, UK
    Posts
    1,085
    My thoughts too.

    Presumably all Plods could do would be read any CAA reports on the "incident" in question and then ask CAA for advice if they found anything they felt they could pursue any "failure" or "negligence" through legal system?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Haslemere, Surrey
    Posts
    1,273
    Umm..

    I don't quite understand the link between the two.

    Perhaps if the same aircraft and pilot were involved, but even then (as others have said), I'm not sure why the Police would need to investigate, separately, or as part of their inquiry into the Shoreham crash.

    (I don't recall any action/investigation taken by the CAA over the Jet Provost 'incident' at Southport).

    Maybe they should put these resources into fighting crime, as opposed to taking over the job of the CAA.

    Cheers

    Paul
    The most usless commodity in aerobatics is the amount of sky above you!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Bradburger View Post
    ...as opposed to taking over the job of the CAA.
    Accident investigation is the responsibility of the AAIB, not the CAA

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Haslemere, Surrey
    Posts
    1,273
    I'm aware of that Mike, but as there was no accident at Southport involving the Jet Provost but a 'close call' (or 'incident' according to Sussex Police) as was suggested at the time, it would be the responsibility of the CAA to look into it.

    That is of course if it was reported to them, or came to their attention.

    Cheers

    Paul
    Last edited by Bradburger; 2nd February 2016 at 16:30.
    The most usless commodity in aerobatics is the amount of sky above you!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,628
    The Police article says there is a wide ranging investigation . Surely the only similarity can be that it was at an air display !

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,241
    Quote Originally Posted by David Burke View Post
    Surely the only similarity can be that it was at an air display !
    And, apparently, the same pilot.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bethesda, North Wales, Burtonwood & Bromley, Kent
    Posts
    1,274


    Start at 9:30 min in
    Last edited by paul1867; 2nd February 2016 at 19:47.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    In a brief statement, Det Ch Insp Paul Rymarz, of the Sussex police, said: “We are aware of an incident at the Southport airshow in 2014. This incident forms a line of inquiry in our wider investigation. All the families are aware of our interest in this incident.”

    The Civil Aviation Authority, which had an inspector at the event, said it had spoken to Hill about the incident.

    A spokesman for the CAA, which began a review of safety standards at air shows after the Shoreham crash, said: “We are aware of an incident that took place at the Southport airshow in 2014, following which the CAA took appropriate action in conjunction with the show’s organisers. We have been informed that this incident currently forms part of an ongoing investigation by Sussex police.”


    The CAA was supporting Sussex police and the Air Accident Investigation Branch in their investigations, the spokesman said. “Due to the ongoing nature of this investigation, it would not be appropriate to comment any further at this stage.”

    While neither organisation would give details of the Southport incident, internet chatroom discussions from the time talk about a Jet Provost, a former RAF training plane, seeming to misjudge a roll and coming within what one observer said was about 20 metres of crowds on the ground.

    Spectators on the forum said the display appeared to then be cut short. “It was a bit of a hold-breath move, and looked as though the pilot misjudged the pull out,” one said.
    It's all smoke an mirrors again, someone somewhere needs to decide who is the Governing body in all air related incidents, the CAA or the Police, The CAA are the experts ( rumour has it ) and that is what the body is there for to legislate and prosecute if a there is a case, they obviously deemed at the time there wasn't.

    The police should stick to what they are bad at!

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...thport-airshow


    The Guardian then goes one step further to put fwd a bunch of armchair pilots as a plausible case for the prosecution..

    While neither organisation would give details of the Southport incident, internet chatroom discussions from the time talk about a Jet Provost, a former RAF training plane, seeming to misjudge a roll and coming within what one observer said was about 20 metres of crowds on the ground.
    http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/foru...02259&start=40


    Give me strength............................

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,942
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post

    The police should stick to what they are bad at!
    I cannot imagine that the police are ever going to step back from investigating sudden (multiple) deaths and I doubt anyone would really want them to.
    Would you have expected them to have left Lockerbie to the CAA?
    Martin

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    And as for this

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/...pilot-10827389

    Mr Hill, who ejected from the aircraft before it hit the ground, was interviewed by police in December.

    Really??

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    Quote Originally Posted by D1566 View Post
    I cannot imagine that the police are ever going to step back from investigating sudden (multiple) deaths and I doubt anyone would really want them to.
    Would you have expected them to have left Lockerbie to the CAA?
    I am referring to Southport, the incident had by all accounts already been actioned and closed by the CAA, sorry for the confusion.

    But the police investigating something they have absolutely no experience of isn't the way to go, the deaths at impact etc yes, and in the case of Lockerbie the suspect bomber etc yes, but the cause of the incident etc needs to be the remit of the CAA and the AAIB as they are the experts in the field, you wouldnt call a plumber to diagnose an electrical fault, would you.

    Why would the police interview the pilot as to what happened, that again should be the AAIB's job, as they are the ones with the skills to understand the events as explained, have a plod sit in by all means, but the AAIB should be leading that investigation, as they will know the questions to ask, and more importantly they will understand the answers.


    .
    Last edited by TonyT; 3rd February 2016 at 11:12.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    Attempting to be non-specific, whereas neither the CAA nor the AAIB have any powers to prosecute, it is the job of the police to act in the case of an individual or individuals suspected of causing death or injury accidentally or intentionally. Isn't it?
    Charlie

    Keep smiling - it's never as bad as you think!!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,068
    Quote Originally Posted by D1566 View Post
    I cannot imagine that the police are ever going to step back from investigating sudden (multiple) deaths and I doubt anyone would really want them to.
    Would you have expected them to have left Lockerbie to the CAA?

    Unlike Shoreham, Lockerbie, from the outset, had suspicions of terrorist attack attached to it, and was therefore a crime scene.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,068
    Charlie,

    Irrespective, the Police do not possess the expertise to make a judgment in aviation matters. They cannot gather and accurately sift aviation related evidence. That is what the CAA do in furtherence of a prosecution.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    Quote Originally Posted by charliehunt View Post
    Attempting to be non-specific, whereas neither the CAA nor the AAIB have any powers to prosecute, it is the job of the police to act in the case of an individual or individuals suspected of causing death or injury accidentally or intentionally. Isn't it?

    You better let them know then Charlie.

    https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/About...-prosecutions/


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    I appreciate that, Tony, although not sure what to infer from the rolling eyes, because I am not sure that "The Civil Aviation Authority is tasked by the Department for Transport to investigate and prosecute breaches of aviation safety rules and some aviation related consumer protection and health and safety requirements." is what we are talking about here. But no doubt you'll put me right if I have misunderstood the distinction.
    Charlie

    Keep smiling - it's never as bad as you think!!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    The eyes are looking up at the link Charlie

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,879
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    It's all smoke an mirrors again, someone somewhere needs to decide who is the Governing body in all air related incidents, the CAA or the Police, The CAA are the experts ( rumour has it ) and that is what the body is there for to legislate and prosecute if a there is a case, they obviously deemed at the time there wasn't.
    The CAA are the governing body in regard to the incident, specifically in regard to details of serviceability or airmanship.

    The police are the governing body with regard to any potential criminal action that may be brought against the organisers or the pilot with regard to the deaths of members of the public. The Southport airshow thing may serve to give context, but I cant see it can do more than that.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    Touche! But the extract I posted, as I suggested, is not what we are talking about. If the police suspect a capital crime has been committed they and only they can prosecute. The CAA can only prosecute infringements of regulations, as they state.
    Charlie

    Keep smiling - it's never as bad as you think!!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    4,328
    Just to make a few corrections - the Police do not prosecute, the CPS do. The Police investigate and gather evidence and ultimately a decision is made by CPS whether to charge if in the Public interest and there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

    CAA will provide their own analysis of the events - they will engage their own experts for their views. Part of this will be examining the history of the airframe as well as the pilot. As such, the pilots 'history' will be relevant.

    Given the nature of the accident at Shoreham and the loss of life, the Coroner will make an initial ruling on the deaths. The CPS will have to satisfy themselves in regard to their threshold tests before deciding whether or not to proceed. I imagine they will be considering whether gross negligence was a factor in the accident and if so, whether they can prove it in a potential trial.

    Posted without further comment.

    TT
    Our Beech 18 & T-6@www.beechrestorations.com
    Visit Sywell Aviation Museum @
    www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/museum.php
    Sywell Airshow 17.8.2014

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Within striking distance of EGMH - as was!
    Posts
    11,477
    Thank you TT. It was lazy of me to omit the CPS from my comments.
    Charlie

    Keep smiling - it's never as bad as you think!!

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northampton
    Posts
    4,328
    Quote Originally Posted by charliehunt View Post
    Thank you TT. It was lazy of me to omit the CPS from my comments.

    Wish I could - I sit opposite em every day!
    Our Beech 18 & T-6@www.beechrestorations.com
    Visit Sywell Aviation Museum @
    www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/museum.php
    Sywell Airshow 17.8.2014

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    Yes Bruce but my second post put that into context

    Quote Originally Posted by D1566 View Post
    I cannot imagine that the police are ever going to step back from investigating sudden (multiple) deaths and I doubt anyone would really want them to.
    Would you have expected them to have left Lockerbie to the CAA?
    I am referring to Southport, the incident had by all accounts already been actioned and closed by the CAA, sorry for the confusion.
    Which is why cannot see why the police would need to investigate it, a simple referral to the CAA, who I assume had been satisfied and have closed the issue would be all that is / was required, I do understand that they could view it as reckless endangerment and a trait in his display flying, but two incidents in how long displaying?

    Mind you it is in the media so one takes that with a pinch of salt.
    Last edited by TonyT; 3rd February 2016 at 15:42.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Bethesda, North Wales, Burtonwood & Bromley, Kent
    Posts
    1,274
    Guys might I respectfully suggest we refrain from making DIRECT conjecture about the incident at Shoreham or we may find this thread, rightly, locked.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,134
    I didn't think I was, I was just querying who were investigating it and why, not the incident itself.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES