Shoreham air crash

[Flinders]

Best to be careful what is said here, now charges have been brought.

For those who want to know the details of what actually happened rather than reading press summaries (which have not been all that accurate) the AAIB reort is now out, though it is long and technical- and naturally is about facts, it is not the AAIB's job to attribute blame and they are careful not to do so.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aircraf ... ugust-2015

There is a list on the above page of all the relevant reports and recommendations, which you can download, including the 400-ish page final report, and a short video explaining diagramatically what happened.


For people wanting to read informed comments (mostly, but not all, from pilots) on the technical issues about the AAIB report, there is the prune forum, but like any forum, it is necessary to remember that some posters are more informed than others, and some have axes to grind.

[The utility cyclist]

I hate the fact that the report still uses the word "accident" and not incident
Also, whilst it might not appear to you that the AAIB point the finger of blame the evidence and the report is particularly damning in its own right and indeed does point the finger of blame by the very nature of the evidence detailed and by the follow ups/measures taken, some within 2 weeks of the crash.

I haven't gone through it all but this part seemed to miss out an option.

The following contributory factors were identified:

The pilot either did not perceive that an escape manoeuvre was necessary, or did not realise that one was possible at the speed achieved at the apex of the manoeuvre
Could not a third option be included, 'the pilot realised that an escape manoeuvre was necessary and/or possible but decided to carry on because they thought they could avoid losing the aircraft/wouldn't lose the aircraft (or some such wording)', because surely that is a very valid scenario, it's replicated time and time and time again in incidents in all walks of life, particularly ones that have bad endings.

Basically the factors in the AAIB report identify human errors in judgement based upon the outcome.

[Cyril Haearn]

I always use 'accident' but always in quotes, I think that is a good way to make the point about RTAs, incidents, crashes &c

[Username]

I always use 'accident' but always in quotes, I think that is a good way to make the point about RTAs, incidents, crashes &c

The crash wasn't intentional, this makes it an accident. Therefore the word accident is appropriate.

[Cyril Haearn]

I always use 'accident' but always in quotes, I think that is a good way to make the point about RTAs, incidents, crashes &c

The crash wasn't intentional, this makes it an accident. Therefore the word accident is appropriate.

In quotes?

[Username]

I always use 'accident' but always in quotes, I think that is a good way to make the point about RTAs, incidents, crashes &c

The crash wasn't intentional, this makes it an accident. Therefore the word accident is appropriate.

In quotes?

Huh?

[Vorpal]

I always use 'accident' but always in quotes, I think that is a good way to make the point about RTAs, incidents, crashes &c

The crash wasn't intentional, this makes it an accident. Therefore the word accident is appropriate.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=120859&start=30#p1219403

[Cyril Haearn]

The crash wasn't intentional, this makes it an accident. Therefore the word accident is appropriate.

In quotes?

Huh?

I always use:
'accident'
Do you think
accident
is right?

[The utility cyclist]

I always use 'accident' but always in quotes, I think that is a good way to make the point about RTAs, incidents, crashes &c

The crash wasn't intentional, this makes it an accident. Therefore the word accident is appropriate.

Sorry but it isn't, it's used far too often to describe incidents where there is most definitely an element of blame, someone doing something wrong and could be foreseen or avoided.
Society has become so comfortable with people doing stuff in a certain way even when we know that it has horrendous outcomes that words like 'accident' are used to soften the effects and how people feel about the event. This has to stop.

it's so bad that we now have those who are supposed to keep the peace, supposed to protect us from harm by doing so actually blaming victims or ignoring important factors and simply describing them as accidents when they most definitely were avoidable.

A small child came off the narrow pathway whilst cycling a few years ago, the motorist that struck her was absolved of all blame by the police, it was an "accident".
And yet the highway planners were at fault for not segregating a narrow lane from a high speed road, the motorists who were a mere few feet away never slowed down or bothered to look to see a small child on a bike and even remotely think to slow down at any juncture because you know, children make errors in judgement, not to make ANY allowances for that is reckless and negligent.

Lest we forget all too easily a cyclist was charged for manslaughter and eventually found guilty of wanton and furious driving (and sent to prison) despite actually slowing down and taking avoiding action and only doing 10mph at impact, surely an 'accident' after-all there was no intent right?

[Vorpal]

There are currently two threads going on the use of the word accident. Can we please put discussion about the use of the word accident on viewtopic.php?f=7&t=120859&start=30#p1219403