Worried Man Blues
Well-known member
Fishermen must be chuffed with this over the water action!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Shoreham air disaster
- Thread starter Thunder Bolt
- Start date
As someone else has said, ensure all acrobatic manoeuvres are performed in an area with no humans directly below it i.e. At sea or over open fields.
To your last point, you're right nothing to stop that. But then liability would rest solely with the pilot - all reasonable measures taken to ensure the publics safety, blown out the water by a reckless individual. We can't say the same for Shoreham as the reports appear to suggest the organisers were not aware of the routine. If they'd seen it and said no don't do it there, do it over the sea, we might be in a different situation.
You wouldn't want car manufacturers to remove airbags because there's nothing they can do if someone's going too fast or attempts a reckless overtake. You want precautions exactly for the situation where an individual human messes up.
drew
Drew
So you're saying all airshows must be performed at coastal towns. Even if they are performed over fields, at some point the plane will fly over a road or a house or something.
The plane was traveling at 350 knots. Had the pilot started the loop about 30 metres later then the crash would have been after he crossed the carriageway. At that spead that is about 15 hundredths of a second!
Hindsight is a marvelous thing.
Last edited:
I was posting about the Hudson river incident. They set the simulator up to replicate the flight, no other pilot has managed to land it safely.
sydney
tinky ****in winky
yes ....so is insurance ......seeing as you are not allowed to drive a car without insurance i'm pretty sure you're not supposed to fly a jet without it....
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
Didn't that bloke in Scotland? driving a dust-cart have a heart attack and crash in to a bus stop with people waiting - think he killed 2.
He was unconscious at the time ....
I don't think he was up for a manslaughter charge - can't remember ....
Mr Hill, the Hunter pilot, was deemed conscious during the accident maneovure by virtue of his body movements captured on a "dash" cam [behind him]. However, the crash rendered him unconscious [bang on the head?] which appears to have wiped his memory of the entire day.
drew
Drew
Where does it say that neither the airshow organizers, the pilot or the owners of the aircraft didn't have insurance?
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
Can't imagine the owner of that rare vintage Hunter jet didn't have insurance - that aircraft is irreplaceable ....
And third party cover for any accidental damage [planes do lots of damage when they crash as we've seen] and that would include personal injury / death too.
If the pilot has no insurance, he could maybe assume he won't survive and thus not around to be sued ...
Not a good situation for all concerned.
And third party cover for any accidental damage [planes do lots of damage when they crash as we've seen] and that would include personal injury / death too.
If the pilot has no insurance, he could maybe assume he won't survive and thus not around to be sued ...
Not a good situation for all concerned.
sydney
tinky ****in winky
where does what say what....
what is the "it" you are referring to... my angle is that the insurers will be in for a massive pay out and will clearly try to avoid it.....in my opinion.
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
The aircraft will have had 3rd party liability cover as required by law. If the owner wishes to insure the hull that is their own choice of course.
Hill will also have had some form of liability insurance as well. The assessment is who or what was the responsible for the proximate cause of the event.
Whoever the insurers are will be protected either by a multi loss non-proportional reinsurance contract or possibly in this case a facultative cover.
Let's hope this ongoing drawn out inquiry process can be brought to conclusion swiftly and the families can have at least some sort of closure.
D
Deleted User X18H
Guest
where does what say what....
They won't try and avoid it as such. But various co insurers may argue over the proximate cause of the 'event'
sydney
tinky ****in winky
has to be pilot error.....surely....!!??
drew
Drew
where does what say what....
Would suggest you read your post again. You quite clearly were suggesting he was flying with no insurance if not, why make the comment about not being able to drive if you haven't got any. The insurers of the aircraft have already paid out one claim.
As for your comment about avoiding paying, I very much doubt that. What they will do is try and establish exactly who is responsible and for what proportions, as there are likely to be several insurance policies involved. Not just a case of opening a cheque book and making a payment. Now the official report is out then things might move a bit quicker.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-owners-admitted-liability-one-survivor.html
drew
Drew
Well I haven't read the whole report yet but the summary is that the it was too low and too slow for the manoeuvre.
Some are going on that this was known along time ago but it may well have been pilot error or there may have been something wrong with the aircraft. The report suggests whilst it had a certificate, it wasn't up to the required level at the time of the flight. Is that the pilot's fault, the owner's fault, the fault of the engineers that maintained etc etc. It would be fantastic if the compensation could be paid out much quicker but no company is going to pay out millions until the cause was actually know.
sydney
tinky ****in winky
no......what i said was that your supposed to have insurance to fly a plane......SURELY the policies validity would be confirmed before allowing the plane off the ground.......what i was saying is that it should be a 100% forgone conclusion that the the plane and pilot both had the appropriate insurances , also what i said that the report ( which i haven't read ) seems to be extremely careful not to write anything that would directly apportion blame to any single party......therefore leaving the doors open for the insurers to appeal any particular ruling later down the track.......i'm afraid i have had extensive dealings with insurance companies , more than happy to take your premium.......extremely reluctant to pay out.......i'm not after an argument at all btw...
sydney
tinky ****in winky
the engineers would be engaged by the owner....as would the pilot , is it the owners responsibility to ensure the plane is up to spec or is the pilot supposed to check this before taking off...?? hope it's all settled for all affected......terrible accident...!
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
I think this is the sentiment I most agree with - from solicitors Irwin Mitchell, representing many of the victims:
"The families and individuals who we represent have shown astonishing patience, dignity and grace in dealing with tragic loss and terrible injury. We call upon the CAA to acknowledge this and act upon all the recommendations of the AAIB as a matter of urgency."
There have been a lot of (some might argue unnecessary) delays in getting to this point, with still many questions unanswered and changes to safety measures still to be implemented.
And thinking of the victims what possible justification, medical or otherwise, can there be for AAIB investigators not being able to interview the pilot about his conduct during the flight?
"The families and individuals who we represent have shown astonishing patience, dignity and grace in dealing with tragic loss and terrible injury. We call upon the CAA to acknowledge this and act upon all the recommendations of the AAIB as a matter of urgency."
There have been a lot of (some might argue unnecessary) delays in getting to this point, with still many questions unanswered and changes to safety measures still to be implemented.
And thinking of the victims what possible justification, medical or otherwise, can there be for AAIB investigators not being able to interview the pilot about his conduct during the flight?
drew
Drew
Whether is true or not, hasn't the pilot claimed he has no recollection of what happened. Could be selective memory but then again can you imagine what it would have been like from his perspective to survive that incident. No consolation to the bereaved families and those injured but if he can't remember then there's not much more the AAIB can do!
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
Just a thought, if there is a scrap of evidence that something else was ultimately the cause [aircraft maint / risk assessment flaws / whatever] maybe Mr Hill is holding out for compo too? Could he be a victim [probably not - but just a thought]
drew
Drew
The owner may well have to take initial responsibility and his insurers, (led by Tokyo Marine) would foot the bill but they would be seeking to recover from other parties if they were at fault. If there was a fault with the plane due to something an engineer did then his insurers may well be involved. For example, if you had your car serviced and on the way home you used the brakes and they didn't work and hit someone, you would expect the garage to ultimately foot the bill.